Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2025-03-26 17:29:39 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_fadc1487-670a-4326-b89f-4e56e02792b3.ogg

Segment 1

Folks, I think we are going to call this meeting to order.
All right, yep.
Okay, so I'm going to call to order the Berkeley City Council meeting.
Today is Tuesday, March 25th, 2025.
It is now 6 50 p.m.
Thank you all so much for your patience.
I appreciate you letting us get in a bite in between.
Can we start with the roll please? Okay, calling the roll.
Council member Kesarwani, currently absent.
Taplin, present.
Bartlett, here.
Tregub, present.
O'Keefe, here.
Blackabay, here.
Lunaparra, here.
Humbert, present.
And Mayor Ishii, here.
Thank you so much.
Okay, so we have some ceremony.
Council member Kesarwani is present.
Thank you, yes.
We have some ceremonial items this evening.
Sorry, folks, I know you're out in the there, but if you could please keep it down.
Thank you so much.
Okay, so very exciting.
We are celebrating National Library Week.
It's a little bit early, but I'm going to read this proclamation here.
Where is the Berkeley Public Library? Oh, actually, do folks from the library want to come up? I want to invite you up so you can.
Thank you so much for being here and thank you for waiting.
I know you've been here a long time.
Okay, whereas the Berkeley Public Library has served the community since 1893, and whereas 157,190 people are registered Berkeley Public Library users with 8,252 children borrowers, and whereas Berkeley Public Library empowers, inspires, and eliminates barriers with resources and experiences, and evolves in response to the changing needs of the community, and whereas the four branches and one central library serves as vibrant community hubs, connecting people with knowledge, technology, and resources, while fostering civic engagement, critical thinking, and lifelong learning, and whereas the Berkeley Public Library's collections provide free and equitable access to books, digital tools, and innovative programming, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of background, have the support they need to learn, connect, and thrive, and whereas over 1.4 physical, I'm guessing 1.4 million physical items and 1.3 digital items circulate annually, and whereas library staff partner with schools, businesses, and organizations making connections to maximize resources, increase efficiency, and expand access to essential services, strengthening the entire community, and whereas libraries empower job seekers, entrepreneurs, and lifelong learners by providing access to resources, training, and opportunities that support tech literacy, career growth, and economic success, and whereas libraries nurture young minds through story times, innovative programming, and literacy initiatives, fostering curiosity and a love of learning that lasts a lifetime, and whereas the Berkeley Public Library offers over 100 innovative and engaging programs for patrons of all ages each month of the year, and whereas libraries protect the right to read, think, and explore without censorship, standing as champions of intellectual freedom and free expression, and whereas Berkeley Public Library staff served as disaster service workers and returned to buildings within two months of the initial COVID closure in 2020 to resume service to the Berkeley community, whereas Berkeley Public Library completed its full restoration of services by reintroducing Sunday hours in September 2024, thus providing seven-day-a-week public service, and whereas Berkeley Public Library has launched a new five-year strategic plan and technology roadmap to meet the current needs and be of better service to the Berkeley community, and whereas libraries, librarians, and library workers across the country are joining together to celebrate National Library Week under the theme Drawn to the Library, and now therefore it, therefore be it resolved that the Council of the City of Berkeley proclaim April 6th through 12th, 2025, as National Library Week.
During this week, we encourage all residents to visit their library, explore its resources, and celebrate all the ways that the library draws us together as a community.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
And I hear you have a presentation for us as well.
We do.
We'll definitely try to keep it brief.
Thank you.
Please go ahead.
So my name is Beverly Green, and I am the President of the Board of Library Trustees, and on behalf of myself and Vice President Taner Ami, Trustees Amy Roth, Priscilla Villanueva, and our newest Trustee Council Member Shoshana O'Keeffe, we want to thank you for providing an opportunity for us to share with you what the Berkeley Public Library has been doing, things that you see and things that you don't see.
We want to thank the community for an incredible amount of support, which was truly crystallized in at the end of the last year, and we also want to thank our Ride or Die supporters.
I want them to stand up.
The Friends of the Berkeley Public Library, the Berkeley Public Library Foundation, and the whole of the Berkeley community.
Thank you.
And with that, we will turn it over to the Director of Library Services, Tess Meyer, for an update.
Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members for your time.
As Beverly stated, I'm Tess Meyer, the Director of Library Services, and we very much appreciate the proclamation recognizing National Library Week.
This is a particularly timely development, so we are very grateful for the overwhelming community support of our library system this past fall with the passage of Measure X, but we also know that on March 14th, an executive order was issued that will significantly reduce funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which is an independent federal agency, and this is primarily going to impact small, rural, and tribal libraries.
The state of California received almost 16 million in IMLS funding on the last fiscal year, so we also know that censorship and book banning have been on the rise in this country over the past several years, and in the past year alone, it increased by 65 percent, and this includes both school and public libraries, and I think you can see from the graphic that actually California is a part of this trend as well, and we certainly are not immune to this.
Libraries, at the same time, are critical for access and digital literacy support.
The laptops and the hotspots that we circulate are still one of the most popular circulating items, and the technology workshops that we offer in every location are very well attended.
Our services, we just want to say a little bit about what we offer.
We do have over 400,000 books, and we also have over 700,000 e-books.
A lot of people are not aware of the e-books.
Got to put in the plug.
We also circulate many other different types of materials, including the tools that you can find at our tool lending library.
We offer over 150 cultural and educational programs a month out of each of our five locations, and our library staff, I'm sorry, I want to back up a little bit and go to the circulation slide.
So even though Berkeley is a smaller system compared to the ones that you see in the chart, we are actually in the 20 highest circulating library systems in the state, which I think is a huge achievement.
Thanks to the public for using the service, and of course, thanks to the staff that worked so hard to do that.
I do want to mention that during the pandemic, library staff had returned to buildings to provide extensive outdoor pickup service by June of 2020, and then the final stage of our reopening process was, of course, the restoration of seven-day-a-week service, which we now offer for full service days at two locations, which is a significant increase over what we had before.
We are proud to have launched a new strategic plan that focuses on patrons experience equitable access, collaborating with the community, and also really building our capacity to be a responsive organization.
And as Mayor Ishii mentioned, we've launched a new technology roadmap, which is really important.
You know, when we're talking about infrastructure and the need for further development, the library is certainly a part of this, and there are a number of technology infrastructure projects that we've identified to manage over the next five years, including improvements to our online services, as well as our materials handling systems, which are a bit outdated and we're circulating a lot of material.
Building staff capacity overall has been a huge priority for the library system over the past several years, with staff in all classifications having opportunities to attend national conferences as well as local trainings.
And this summer, we're really excited to be launching a comprehensive safety and workplace violence prevention training, a multi-day training for every single library staff member.
So to conclude, we just want to invite you to all get involved, especially this week or next week, but always.
So please feel free to attend programs, join our email list always.
So please feel free to attend programs, join our email list, follow us on social, and please do let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you, thank you so much.
Okay, I'm gonna walk over and give this to you in a second, we'll take a couple of photos, but I just want to say thank you for your presentation and just for all the work you do in the community.
I got a great tour of the library, so if you all haven't been on an official tour, please definitely check it out.
Thanks so much for your service to our community.
Thank you.
Yes, of course, absolutely.
Thank you so much, thanks everybody.
Thank you, thanks everyone.
And we also have an adjournment in memory this evening, and I'm going to let Council Member Trageb introduce this.
Thank you so much, Madam Mayor.
Although we previously adjourned in memory of Marty Schiffenbauer, the father of rent control in Berkeley, and so much more, I have I have an in-memory statement to read this evening.
Before I read it, I want to note that my staff and I have been in very close communication with Marty Schiffenbauer's widow Caskey.
While she's not here with us this evening, she asked us to proceed with celebrating him tonight.
She said that she's deeply appreciative that we're sharing Marty's legacy with our community.
She also asked us to share a recording of this meeting with her, which my staff will do as soon as it is available.
Today, we remember and honor the life of Marty Schiffenbauer, a beloved member of our Berkeley community who passed away on February 6, 2025, at the age of 86.
Marty's legacy will forever be etched in the history of our city, and his contributions continue to impact the lives of all who call Berkeley home.
Marty was a tireless activist dedicating to making Berkeley a more equitable and compassionate place for all.
His work as the co-author of Berkeley's rent control legislation stands as one of his significant accomplishments, ensuring that the city remained accessible and affordable to its diverse population.
His efforts were instrumental in preserving the very fabric of our community, allowing people from all walks of life to live and thrive in our city.
And let me just be, again, very clear and put a finer point on this.
Without Marty's efforts, there would very likely not be an elected Berkeley rent board, let alone one of the strongest, if not the strongest, forms of just cause eviction and rent control ordinances in the nation.
In addition to his work on rent control, Marty played a crucial role in drafting a charter amendment that shifted our municipal election date to coincide with the general election.
This change led to a more inclusive voter turnout, empowering students, tenants, and low-income voters, and ushering in a new era of progressive policies in Berkeley.
In fact, at one point, thanks to his efforts, we had an all-female city council.
Marty's contributions to our city were not limited to politics.
His passion for social justice and his deep knowledge of economics helped to shape our collective consciousness.
Through his work, including his activism for home price caps and his involvement in the countercultural movements of the 1960s, Marty made a lasting impact on not only Berkeley, but on the broader movement for social equity across the country and world.
Marty's warmth, generosity, and thoughtfulness touched everyone he met.
He lived a life of joy, full of spontaneity and laughter, and was always ready to lend a hand or offer support to his friends and community.
His commitment to kindness, empathy, activism, and his devilish sense of humor was a shining example for us all.
Let us remember Marty Schiffenbauer, not only for his remarkable contributions to our city, but also for the incredible person he was, a man who, through his actions and through who he was, made the world a better place.
May his memory continue to inspire us in the work we do for the people of Berkeley and beyond.
Rest in power, Marty.
You have been and will always be an inspiration to our beloved community.
Thank you so much, Council Member.
I appreciate you, you know, adjourning in his honor and also working with his family to make sure they were able to see that.
I believe that is the end of our ceremonial items, so I will now go over to City Manager if there are any.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Just a quick one to note that item 12 on your agenda tonight is the Notice of Decision for the Landmarks Preservation Committee designation of 2138 Kittredge as the City Landmark.
That action has been appealed, and so we'll schedule a public hearing at a future City Council meeting to take that matter up.
Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
And I don't know if our City Auditor is here, if she has any comments.
Is she online? I'm just going to have her hand raised if she is.
I don't see her.
Okay, we can come back to her later if she does have comments.
So now we're going to be moving on to public comment on non-agenda matters.
Thank you.
Is it possible for us to open the other door too? It is so hot in here.
I feel like I'm suffocating.
Thank you.
The five in-person speakers are Robert Holcomb, Jermaine Dowdle, Steve Tracy, Christian Jasinski, and Janice Chang.
Come up in any order, just come right up and line up along here, and whoever's ready can come speak first.
Sure, folks, and just so folks know that this is public comment on non-agenda matters, so items that are not currently on our agenda.
Thank you, go ahead when you're ready.
Good evening, Mayor Ishii and City Council.
Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity.
I am asking you all to seriously consider raising the affordable housing mitigation fees.
In the current political climate, it's highly unlikely we're going to get state and federal funds to leverage against our affordable housing trust fund, and the fact that every developer opts, at least in part, to pay the in-lieu fee instead of providing the required 20 percent below market rate units in our projects means that our fee is too low.
I'm sure you will all talk tonight about how much we need housing, but please keep in mind that every arena cycle, Berkeley falls far short of our low-income housing goals, while greatly exceeding our market rate goals.
It's time to significantly raise the fee to incentivize putting the units into every building.
This is something you have the power to change, and I hope you'll do it right away.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Next.
Hey, good evening, Mayor and Council Members.
My name is Jermaine Dowdell.
I'm a Journey Member Carpenter for 713.
I want to speak about the importance of a livable wage, health benefits, hiring locally, and apprenticeship programs.
As a carpenter who has completed the apprenticeship program, I understand the value of the training and the benefits of union and union jobs.
They have provided me and my family with the opportunity to have a home, health care, and a successful future.
Also, while in my career, I've been fortunate to work in the communities I've come up in, which is why I support hiring locally.
I believe it gives an individual a sense of pride in their community and creates a positive economic impact in their environment as well.
So that next young person growing up can see a productive member of society from their community with a brighter career path and future.
They could very well be the next Journey Person Carpenter and provide for their family as well.
To close, when there is a project, please have a responsible contractor and developer when building in Berkeley.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comments.
Next person.
Hello, Mayor and Councilmembers and Vice Mayor Bartlett.
My name is Robert Holcomb.
I'm a member of District 3 and I'm here tonight to share the excruciatingly frustrating experience I've had trying to change 30-year-old windows in my house.
It was December 2024 when I applied for a permit in my house.
It was December 2024 when I applied for a permit to change the two front windows on my house and I was told, because my house is a few feet too close to the street than zoning allows, for my $10,000 project, the windows and installation, I was going to have to pay $5,000 in permitting costs and go through the six-month administrative use process.
I was told there was no recourse.
Thankfully, I reached out to Councilmember Bartlett, who was able to connect me with the planning department and together we worked and they agreed to waive the fees.
However, a month later, I still continue to struggle with the paperwork and I'm told as of today that it's still a month out to get my permit.
Thank you so much for your comments.
I appreciate that.
Refer this to the City Manager.
Okay, thank you.
Was there another card for in-person comment? Yes, we have Steve Tracy and Christian Jasinski.
Hello, City Council.
I'm Rob Holcomb's husband and I can just attest to the frustration of the process of going through changing our windows with the City.
One day I almost was in tears.
It was just so frustrating.
So anything you can do to simplify that process, I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
I love how supportive our audience is today.
Thank you.
Yeah, good energy.
Are there folks online? Yes.
First commenter, and again, this is non-agenda public comment.
This is Mark Hedlund.
Thank you.
This is Mark Hedlund and I'm resident of District 8.
I just wanted to say thank you to the Transportation and Public Works staff for the huge improvements last week at Hillgas, Nashville, which is a bike boulevard crossing in my neighborhood.
This intersection has been really rough for cyclists and pedestrians for many years and staff did an incredible job launching a set of changes here last week.
The light timing is better, the signs explaining the light to drivers are better, and automatic bike detection as well is better.
It's a wholesale improvement and I appreciate it a ton.
In years past, staff has been beaten up a lot over transportation projects and I just wanted to make sure to acknowledge their work in front of the full Council.
They do great things for Berkeley and deserve praise and support.
Thank you.
Thanks so much, Mark.
We don't get to hear those kinds of comments often, so thank you very much and we do have excellent staff.
Okay, next is Rob.
Rob, you should be able to unmute.
Last call for Rob.
Okay, we'll move on to the next person.
Next speaker, non-agenda, is Healthy Black.
This is Ayanna Davis.
I am here representing myself this evening.
I just wanted to bring it to the Council's attention that today is the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade.
I want to honor those ancestors that were enslaved in this area who have been written out of history and the 60 million documented by W.E.B.
Du Bois who perished in the slave trade and to encourage the City to bring this day onto their calendar so that we can have remembrance of our ancestors who perished in the genocide and those who survived and underwent 400 years of chattel slavery and contributed to the wealth of this country.
Thank you.
I'm sorry your time is up, but I really appreciate you bringing that to us today.
Okay, we can try Rob one more time.
Rob, you should be able to unmute.
Okay.
Daniel Brownson.
Hi, can you hear me? Yes.
Okay, so I'm sure everyone's aware that the administration is using ICE basically as their Gestapo and has disappeared for his free speech and are now seeking to deport a Korean-American, Yunseo Chung, also in retaliation for her exercising her right to free speech.
So I would call on the Council to pass a resolution condemning the use of ICE to disappear people for speaking out about their principles.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks so much.
I think that that's it for online, but if there are any other folks who are here that like to speak on non-agenda matters, we've got two more speakers spots.
Okay.
I see no movements or are you, is anyone else interested? I think that this..
Yes, come forward please.
If you're interested in giving a comment, you'll have to come up.
That's why we don't have people standing all along the wall so that people can tell who's in line to speak and who's not.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Good evening.
Congratulations.
Go ahead and pull the mic down so we can hear you better.
Thank you.
I'm a shorty.
Anyway, I've lived in Berkeley since the early 70s.
Excuse me, this is my dog Bella.
She's a little, she just lost her significant other, so she's a little hyperactive.
Sorry.
I have three quick items just to bring up that are very alarming to me in my experience being in Berkeley in the last few years.
One of them is human trafficking, human sex trafficking, and I was almost a victim of it.
About two months ago at Cole's Coffee on College Avenue across from Safeway.
It seems to be a spot where it's happening because about, does that mean my time's up? I'm sorry.
Yeah, your time is up.
Okay.
I have two other quickies.
I'm sorry.
Unfortunately, that is your time.
Okay.
Carol's giving you a minute.
Go ahead.
The for-profit emergency vehicles now are shackling women in Berkeley and Oakland.
It happened to a girlfriend of mine, so I thought you might want to know about that.

Segment 2

I'm going to start by saying that the police department, in conjunction with the EMC and for-profit EMC trucks, are shackling women.
I don't know about men, but that's pretty extreme.
And then the other one is California State redwood trees are being cut down with impunity illegally all over Berkeley.
I can see the remnants of that happening, and I'm working to try and prevent that in my neighborhood.
But I get no support from parks and recs about that issue.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
I appreciate it.
Do we have another speaker here? Oh, that was 10.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
We miscounted.
It's my bad.
I miscounted.
So we've actually had 10.
So we will be moving on to the next thing.
Okay, so we are now moving on to the consent calendar.
Comments from Council on consent? And if not, I would like to move.
Did you? I'm sorry.
Go ahead, Council Member Trako.
You can go first.
Certainly.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Yeah, I'm happy to either move or second a motion to I think I'm going to ask if we could move item 10B to the consent calendar.
And then.
And so I can be the staff recommendation, which is the companion report allocating $2,294,774 over two years.
FY 2026 and FY 2027 to reduce consumption and health impacts of sugar sweetened beverages.
And then I, I had.
I, I wanted to thank my, my office has had meetings with member current and former members of that commission.
And we have also been in communication with staff and I really want to pass along my appreciation for all of the work that has been done to come together towards a recommendation and the commitment of staff to work with enhanced transparency with the commission.
This is a much more collaborative process than what my understanding has been of past processes.
And so I really want to commend everyone involved and thank them.
I also wanted to state my support for this is the second reading on proposed amendments to the building emissions savings ordinance, which is item number one.
Even though the ordinance is not as strong as I would have liked for it to be, I do think it is important that we strike a balance between being understanding and committed to combating the impacts of climate change.
And dealing with the continued housing on affordability crisis, including the housing ownership on affordability crisis in our city.
And I do think that this, these amendments are a first step towards that.
So, I support both items and would like to move the consent calendar.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I just want to call attention to number two on the consent calendar.
This is the second reading.
The ordinance prevailing a sale and use of pricing algorithms to set rents and manage occupancy levels for residential dwelling units is very important.
This I think this represents our first step and to be many more efforts to achieve ethical alignment with emerging technology.
Very important stuff.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Other comments comes member Black.
Comments also want to comment on item number one on base so and appreciate the work from the city attorney and from the planning director on implementing the referral that we had made to affect the 5050 split between buyer and seller.
So that's part of the second reading and I just appreciate the quick and good work to be responsive to that debate and discussion that we had.
And to was pleasure to work with Councilmember Luna par and item number two and appreciate the indulgence on.
We just made a slight further clarification of the definition of pricing algorithm to call it coordinated pricing algorithm which was a more accurate description I think of the, of what we were trying to stop.
So again, thanks to the city attorney into our team for for collaborating on that.
And otherwise I support the consent calendar so thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember customer money.
Yes, thank you very much I did want to thank the city attorney's office for their willingness to work with us to develop those amendments to the base of ordinance and I want to echo the support that my colleagues have expressed for that item.
I also want to appreciate.
There's an item here.
It's procedural relative to an EIR but it's so we that we can have public restrooms at the Tom Bates regional sports field, which I know is so important for for all of us for recreational users so I just wanted to note that as well and appreciate that process moving forward.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Other comments from Council.
Since former mayor Tom Bates is in the audience I do hope he will have a comment for us.
Yeah, I, I just want to make sure there's no opposition to moving 10 be to consent.
Okay, great.
So I will open it up then for public comment on consent calendar and information items only please.
So, Madam Mayor and members of the council.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly about the sports fields.
First of all, excuse me, I have to say that I was involved with it for over 18 months.
And during that time there were numerous people involved.
Not the least of which was were people here, and for the city of Berkeley who fought for us to make this a sports field.
There wasn't always going to be that way.
What was it supposed to be? I'm not the least of which was were people here.
And for the city of Berkeley, who fought for us to make this a sports field.
There wasn't always going to be that way.
What was it supposed to be.
There's originally the people who own the property wanted it to be a shopping center on what's now the Meadow.
Berkeley citizens voted that down.
Then they said, we want to have a high rise apartments there.
At the time, they were going to be taller than the Houston Tower.
So, it was incredibly bad.
Then they went to the city of Emeryville and said, we're going to build a high rise on Emeryville.
Right on the mud flats.
And we stopped that at BCDC.
So, it was a long, long struggle.
Two bonds were passed to the state bonds.
And then the East Bay Regional Parks.
Thank God for the East Bay Regional Parks.
Because it turns out that I didn't know this at the time.
But it turns out the state parks do not have active recreation at any of the state parks.
So, we had to bring the East Bay Regional Parks in, in order for us to have active activity.
And so then we also went back to the East Bay Regional Parks and said, you got to put up a bond to help pay for this.
So, we got 15 million from the East Bay Regional Park, two other bonds.
And then, which was called Cutellus, which was the railroads merged to be called Cutellus.
And put all their land in the corporation of Cutellus.
And then to get to, they said, we're not selling.
We don't care what this.
So, I then put in legislation, which may put the East Bay Regional Park District in charge of making.
Does someone have another minute to give him? Okay, a minute over here for you.
Go ahead.
I'm a stickler for timing.
So, please continue.
You've got another minute.
Go ahead.
But I just want to say that what happened then was we got East Bay Regional Parks in to not only be an active participant in purchasing, but also to be able to condemn the property.
So, then we had some clout, but the state would not condemn property, which I didn't know.
They still don't condemn property.
So, we ended up getting them.
And then the last straw was we went to the citizens of Berkeley and Emeryville and Albany and put on the ballot to make it a park.
So, they did.
The voters all voted to make it a park.
So, now Cutellus had a piece of property that really was worth nothing.
I mean, in terms of what they had in mind.
So, it was a long struggle.
And Scott Ferris has played a big part in this.
And I'm sorry.
Scott is not here tonight.
He asked me to come down and speak about it.
So, thank you very much.
And you guys, we're very proud of what's happening now.
There's going to be pickleball courts.
There's going to be a championship.
I don't play pickleball, but maybe I can learn.
Pickleball courts.
And then the best part is they're going to have a smaller soccer field for kids eight and under.
So, it's going to be great.
So, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much to former Mayor Tom Bates.
Very exciting updates.
I want to speak in favor of item two.
I understood the difficulties with enforcement argument.
But that isn't a reason to not pass something and declare something as illegal and take the position.
Take the stand for something that is so important.
I have concerns about the remedies and enforcement.
It's very similar to the source of income discrimination ordinance where we have an ordinance on the books since 2017.
But there are enforcement issues.
Here we have the exact same remedies for the city attorney to do something, which is completely unrealistic to expect our city attorney to take on these cases.
It was already overburdened.
And second, there is the private right of action.
But where are the attorneys that are going to take on cases like this? And I don't know if it's possible when we contract with our legal CBOs to actually arrange for them or get an agreement for them to take these kind of cases on and take source of income discrimination cases.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other comments on consent items or information items only? Any online? One online commenter, Daniel Brownson, on the consent calendar.
Hello.
I would like to voice my support for item 2, banning the use of algorithmic price fixing and vacancy setting.
This is a good measure to prevent.
Despite the issues with difficulty enforcement, it's a good measure to prevent already unaffordable housing from becoming even more unaffordable and new is being kept vacant to make to create artificial scarcity.
Furthermore, in new construction, there shouldn't be a fee that developers can pay to get out of making affordable housing.
They should just have to do it.
Okay.
Thanks for your comment.
Any other online? Okay.
Thank you so much.
Coming back to council here.
Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar? So moved.
A second from Council Member Humbert.
Can we approve this unanimously? Okay.
All right.
The consent calendar is approved unanimously.
Thanks, everybody.
And just for folks, in case you were here for any of either of the items 10, they are both basically removed from our action calendar.
So just so folks know, and I do just I probably should have said this earlier, but just want to say that our commission has agreed to the report from our staff.
So I just want to make sure that that was clear.
And we're going to be moving on to item to the action calendar, which starts with item number eight, which is the establishment of the MRD zoning district associated general plan and West Berkeley plan amendments and environmental impact report.
All right.
I'm sorry.
I'm so sorry.
We've actually moved forward already on this item.
And I and I'm, I'm really sorry.
I'm really.
No, I'm so sorry, but it's.
It's been it's we've already moved on it.
We've already voted.
So, my apologies and I was also just told by a council member that I was mistaken that it's possible that not all the commissioners were supportive.
But I do know that our commission chair was.
So, please go ahead.
Thank you.
Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members.
I'm Jordan client.
I'm director of planning development.
Ashley is pulling up the slide deck, and I'm going to go ahead and give the introduction while she does that.
I am joined at the staff table by Eleanor Hollander, who's the manager of economic development.
Ashley James, a senior planner in our policy division and Florettina with LSA, which is a firm that has assisted us with environmental review.
We also have Teresa Wallace and Lauren from LSA in the audience.
And I want to recognize and Hirsch, the planning manager and Aileen Pearson, deputy director of planning, who has served as the principal, the supervising planner for the supervising principal for this project.
So, we are so thrilled to be here this evening to recommend an ordinance that will create a new, zoning district in West Berkeley, the manufacturing research and development district associated amendments to the, and also a resolution adopting associated amendments to the general plan, the West Berkeley plan and recommending certification of the associated.
This project is the culmination of several years of work that we've pursued in partnership with the office of economic development and the city attorney's office.
And other city departments, and I think it's presents an opportunity to reactivate and revitalize an important site in West Berkeley in accordance with the council direction.
And so, with that introduction, we have the slide deck up.
I'll turn over to Ashley.
All right, good evening, council members.
I think you're yeah, Mike might be off and just move it closer to you.
Sorry, I'm a little quiet.
Is this better? A little bit.
Yeah, just as close as you can get so folks can hear you online.
Good evening, council members.
As Jordan introduced, my name is Ashley James, a senior planner with the land use planning division.
And so this item is for council to consider zoning ordinance in West Berkeley and general plan amendments to establish a new zoning district called manufacturing research and development district.
In the vicinity of the former Pacific steel casting site.
So, tonight we'll be giving you a presentation on the response to the council referral, including the amendments and the environmental impact report, followed by the staff recommendation and discussion and action by the council.
First up is a description of the zoning and plan amendments proposed for your consideration and action this evening.
I'll start with some background on how this project began and the process we have gone through to bring these amendments to you for consideration tonight.
The proposed district, which is outlined in red on this map is in the far northwest corner of Berkeley along Gilman street, which is an entry corridor to the city from interstate eighty.
This is an industrial area with a mix of manufacturing research and development.
And as described on page, two of your report, the city received a zoning map amendment application to reason on the area outlined in blue on this map, which included a conceptual plan for a potential Berkeley forge development project, which was evaluated in the environmental impact report.
So, as referenced at the beginning of this presentation, the zoning and plan amendments were proposed by the council.
Council referral from twenty twenty one, which can be found in attachment three.
This referral requested that staff reason on the site of the former Pacific steel casting company to address a number of known issues, including environmental contamination, blighted conditions and delayed pension payment to the company's employees.
When this referral was presented, the site had been on the market for some time as the current manufacturing zoning district limits uses to heavy manufacturing while interest from the development community had been for biotechnology labs, warehousing, commercial or office space.
The slide illustrates the process from when the referral was adopted through tonight.
We're presenting the draft amendments for adoption and finally are for certification.
We've held five public meetings.
The draft and proposed amendments were presented to the planning commission in November, and the commission voted unanimously to recommend the proposal to council for adoption.
In order to create the new MRD district, staff are proposing amendments to the zoning map and ordinance, the West Berkeley plan, and the general plan to adopt the zoning map.
Regarding the proposed land uses in the MRD district, you can refer to page four of your report, table one, where you can see the proposed land uses in the MRD district.
In order to create the new MRD district, staff are proposing amendments to the zoning map and ordinance, the West Berkeley plan, and the general plan to add mention of the district.
Regarding the proposed land uses in the MRD district, you can refer to page four of your report, table one, for more detail.
But this slide shows that the uses allowed in the MRD would generally match those of the MULI per the council referral, with a few differences meant to support the goals of that referral.
This table shows uses we are encouraging by allowing where they're currently prohibited in the M district, but are allowed in the MULI.
So retail, large vehicle sales and rental, live entertainment, and public markets would be allowed because they support employment opportunities and amenities for employees and customers.
This table shows a few more uses we are encouraging by either allowing where they are prohibited in the M or the MULI, or by reducing the permit level.
These uses support high-density industrial employment in our labs, R&D, and semiconductor manufacturing.
This table lists the few uses allowed in the M or MULI districts that don't align with the purposes of the MRD, so they would not be allowed in this district.
The first section of uses, starting with alcoholic beverage retail sales, don't align with the goal to encourage high-density industrial employment opportunities.
And the second set of uses, starting with commercial excavation, don't align with the goals to support environmental cleanup efforts or high-density industrial employment.
Here are the proposed zoning permit requirements to construct either an addition or a new building.
So briefly, a zoning certificate is an over-the-counter approval, while an administrative use permit is approved by staff, and a use permit with a public hearing is approved by the Zoning Adjustments Board.
The slide illustrates that the MRD would be much more permissive than the MULI to encourage a campus-like environment and to bring a more cost-effective process to the district, encouraging flexible business growth over time.
For example, in the MRD, up to 60,000 square feet of floor area could be permitted with a zoning certificate, whereas in the MULI, that maximum is 10,000.
All of the proposed development standards are listed on page 7, table 3 of your report, and overall, they are the same as the existing manufacturing districts, with some differences bolded here.
Usable open space would be required on-site, representing at least 2% of the gross floor area of a building, to encourage more pedestrian-friendly designs with landscaped areas and building setbacks from the property line.
The maximum height would be 55 feet, which is consistent with the goals of the West Berkeley Plan to allow three-story buildings.
This height could be increased to 105 feet with a permit, which I'll explain later in the presentation.
Law coverage would be capped at 80% to allow for open space and amenities for employees, which aligns with the proposed district purposes.
And on-site loading requirements would be reduced only for R&D uses to better support the unique building needs of this use compared to other industrial uses.
This proposal reflects more modern standards that we're seeing in recently approved developments and brings them in line with nearby cities.
And finally, some uses in the Muley are protected, meaning that a permit is required to change to a non-protected use.
This requirement would not apply in the MRD in order to facilitate redevelopment of the area per the Council referral.
Staff are also proposing flexibility through a process called modifications to development standards on large sites.
Currently, a property in the West Berkeley Plan area can attain a permit to modify development standards if the project meets certain eligibility criteria.
Typically, projects that redevelop large sites utilize a development agreement, while this section would be included in the zoning district regulations to help streamline the process.
This process would apply only in the MRD on sites that are at least nine acres to facilitate development with more high-quality site planning and amenities and address environmental contamination and blight issues that are specific to this area.
With approval of this permit, a building could be constructed up to 105 feet instead of 55 feet, and floor area ratio and lot coverage standards could be met on a project-wide basis.
But on any one parcel, these two standards could be increased by up to 20 percent.
But overall, the project would need to comply with a maximum of 2.0 and 80 percent.
So the intent of this flexibility is to provide more visual interest and allow for open space and maintain views.
So in order to add this district to the municipal code, the West Berkeley Plan would need to be amended to describe the new district and update the land use map.
No other changes are proposed to this plan.
And similarly, the general plan manufacturing land use designation would be amended to reference the district as shown here, and no other changes are proposed to this plan.
So we're now going to transition to discussing the environmental review or CEQA process for this project.
I'd like to introduce Florentina Cratchun, who's project manager for that.
Hello, everybody.
Like Ashley mentioned, I will give a brief overview of the CEQA process for the proposed project.
Before we dive in, I want to remind everybody that the purpose of undertaking CEQA review is to provide members of the public and decision makers alike with information about potential environmental impacts.
CEQA does not advocate for or against a project.
In CEQA, we first try to prevent any impacts, and if impacts would occur, we identify mitigation measures and disclose said impacts.
In addition, CEQA must be done and considered prior to a project approval.
The Gilman Gateway EIR that was released for public review in October 2024 analyzes the proposed rezone and environmental impacts that would result from future projects, and the Berkeley Forge Project, which is a reasonable foreseeable project under the proposed rezone.
Please note that a formal application for any development project, including the Berkeley Forge Project, has not been received by the city.
Once a formal application is received, it will be evaluated by staff to determine compliance with the district regulations and whether or not it requires any additional environmental review.
CEQA requires that we evaluate 20 topic areas as listed on this slide.
Each topic area has a list of questions that we are required to consider.
For the sake of brevity, I will focus on the impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable.
A complete summary of all the impacts and proposed mitigation measures is included in Chapter 2, Executive Summary of the draft EIR.
The proposed project was found to have either no impact, a less than significant impact, or impacts that would be reduced to less than significant with implementation and mitigation measures for the topic areas that are in black.
We identified significant and unavoidable impacts under the topic areas that are in blue, and that includes air quality, cultural resources, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Future development on the project site could result in the demolition of the structure located at 1306 3rd Street, which is a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA.
As such, this project impact will remain significant and unavoidable, even with implementation and mitigation measures due to the loss of the resource.
As a reminder, the city is not proposing to demolish the building, nor has it received the project application that proposes to demolish the structure.
We are merely evaluating the potential for demolition if it's going to happen as part of the redevelopment.
The air quality impacts that remain significant and unavoidable are due to the lack of specific development proposal details.
As such, mitigation measures require that any future project would need to submit a project-specific health risk assessment that staff would evaluate, as well as compliance with the Air District's construction requirements and temporary relocation of any sensitive residents at 1306 3rd Street if any impacts would occur.
Lastly, the greenhouse gas emissions significant and unavoidable impacts relate to a policy conflict with the Air District's recommendation that require no new natural gas connections be allowed.
This is to meet the state's greenhouse gas emission targets.
As you may know, the city is no longer able to enforce the natural gas ban.
Therefore, should a future project include new natural gas uses, it would result in a significant impact.
Lastly, CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that would attain most of the project objectives and would avoid or substantially reduce the project significance impacts.
As shown on the slide, the EIR considered three alternatives.
No action that would include absolutely no changes to the project site and no construction.
A general plan compliant alternative that looked at what project development would look like under the existing general plan and zoning.
And the reduced development alternative that reduced the scope of development assumptions, which would reduce but not avoid the potential impacts.
The full discussion of alternatives is found in Chapter 5 of the draft EIR.
And with that, I'm going to turn it back to Ashley.
Thank you, Florentina.

Segment 3

And so with that, let's move to close the staff presentation with the recommendation.
So staff is recommending that you conduct a public hearing, take public comment on the proposed amendments, and adopt the proposed ordinance and resolution and certify the environmental impact report.
So thank you very much, and we're available for any questions.
Thank you.
Thanks so much for the report.
Are there any clarifying questions from the council? Okay, let's open this to public comment for the establishment of MR&D Zoning District, just to clarify if there are any comments on this item.
Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council.
I think one of the questions that the middle class workers of Berkeley and the residents here would like to know is the applicability for this in regards to hardhats and that development.
If any of the projects that are discussed or proposed here that are going to be over fifty thousand square feet, if those are going to have the health care and apprenticeship training standards that the city passed that came into effect January one of this year.
So, I'm not sure if that's been discussed or determined yet or not, but that's something that obviously the middle class workers that live here and want to build here would love to know.
Thank you.
Okay, good afternoon.
My name is Yvonne and I'm a, I'm a resident of 1306 3rd street.
And I have a letter to deliver to Ashley James and crew.
I'm just going to read the conclusion for now, because it's quite long, but here we go.
The final ER fails to respond or address the extensive comments made by the owners of 1306 3rd street.
Respectfully, the final ER fails to address impacts on 1306 3rd street the references to the conceptual development project and project level should be stricken.
These references remain confusing and will inevitably lead to additional issues as this process moves forward.
Specifically, developers will unlawfully attempt to use this final in order to gain approval of the specific projects without addressing environmental impacts.
Please be advised that the owners of 1306 3rd street neighbors and homeowners will strongly object when this occurs.
The ambiguity around the final language is concerning and to continually refer to a conceptual development plan that will have significant impacts on the 1306 3rd street building and to consistently disregard these with the language that includes the note that this building may be simply demolished.
Is improper disrespectful to the owners occupants of the building and disregards the usual public comment process the owners of 1306 3rd street support redevelopment.
Including myself, however, they remain very concerned about the city's continued disregard of their comments and the city's lack of response to the specific issues that we have brought up to the staff at multiple times along this process.
Our commentary and feedback have not been responded to or addressed.
We have made reasonable recommendations, which have not been integrated into the city appears to lack any consideration for the owners and families that are impacted.
That's all.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there other comments on this item online? There's one online comment to online commenters first is Christie sure Ella.
You have 2 minutes and just a reminder for folks who are online.
This is on item number 8, the establishment of the zoning district.
Good evening.
My name is Christie and I am the policy manager.
In the area for bio calm, California, bio calm is 1 of the largest life science trade associations in the country.
And our members are dedicated to advancing breakthroughs in the life science industries.
Many of our member companies are headquartered or operating in Berkeley.
We think that creating a new designated zoning district and Berkeley will provide the infrastructure and regulatory framework necessary to support this fast growing and high impact industry.
It will create a more predictable and streamlined environment for business to develop and we hear that a lot from our members.
They really need predictability when they're deciding where.
They're going to locate or grow, and we strongly encourage the Berkeley city council to approve this legislation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Next is Daniel Brownson.
Just a question would with this in any way in danger the 9 to 4 Gilman.
You can make your comments.
This we don't do it.
Back and forth discussion during public comments, but.
Perhaps that was his comment.
That's your only comment.
Okay.
It says questions and discussion.
So, that's a question.
Thanks, thank you for your question.
Are there any other comments? Okay.
No hands raised.
All right.
So, perhaps you might address his.
His question, actually, and also if you would also address the hard hats as well.
Question.
Yeah, I can start with the hard hats question, which is that.
Primarily, the project is a rezoning initiative.
There's no specific development project being proposed or considered for action tonight.
And so any future project would have to comply with all the provisions of the municipal code, including hard hats.
And so I believe the minimum threshold for that is fifty thousand and so again, if any development project came forward meeting the requirements for hard hats, that would be implemented.
Thank you as to nine to four Gilman.
I believe that's a concert venue.
Nearby and six blocks away.
Yeah, so that is outside of the project area.
Okay, thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Comments from council.
Okay, so.
Yeah, I'm going to close I'm going to close the public hearing.
I can do that.
I don't need a motion to do it.
Oh, you don't do it.
All right.
I will entertain a motion.
Thank you.
Second.
All right.
Thank you very much.
And council member unanimous consent on the motion.
Oh, yes, there is unanimous consent.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yeah, council member.
I do have a question for staff.
Thank you.
On the.
Item around significant unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions.
I, I understand that right now because.
The gas ban that we have has been overridden by a court opinion that would not apply.
I just wanted to ask, does approving this in any way preclude us from passing.
Greenhouse gas emission and or efficiency standards in the future that would prospectively apply to anything that could be zoned following such approval? No, it would not preclude the city council from doing.
So, thank you.
I'm going to go to council member Kester.
Thank you very much.
Madam mayor.
Thank you.
Director Klein.
Thank you to our staff director Hollander for all of your work to get us to this point.
I do have to just reminisce a bit because we introduced this item in April, twenty, twenty one, and it's now almost April, twenty, twenty five.
And in that work in that time, a lot of work has gone into the presentation that we received tonight.
It was not just the zoning ordinance, but obviously, when you do an environmental impact report, it is an exhaustive process.
So, I just want to appreciate that.
And and just, you know, big picture when people are getting on the freeway or getting off the freeway, you see a big ten acre blighted site right now.
And this has the potential to be something so much more, you know, what the zoning is contemplating is potentially a large life sciences and research and development campus.
And what that will do in terms of just revitalizing, not only the Gilman district, but creating revenue.
We are always looking for revenue and one one actually very cost effective way to raise revenue for our city, if I may say, is looking at land use.
How can we be more productive in our land uses and the old M zoning, which is what this is, it served its purpose in the last century.
And now what we're doing here is we're modernizing.
We are trying to align our zoning ordinance with the types of jobs and industries that are growing and and that we hope to attract in our city.
So, so I'm really pleased by this.
And and I also want to know when we did that referral in April, twenty, twenty one to request this rezoning.
We had workers from the old Pacific steel casting site that that's that was the use for a long time.
They they abruptly declared bankruptcy and those workers were owed their pension benefits.
And it was a result of I like to believe it was a result of this referral that that enticed a developer to to purchase this, this huge parcel of land.
That is what made the workers hold.
So they have been made whole with their pension benefits.
We hope to see a transformation of this area.
And and so, so I'm just really thrilled that we're at this point.
And I do want to emphasize that these types of projects, they, they traditionally use a project labor agreement.
And then we also have our hard hats requirement as well.
So, the, the creation of this site is going to create good paying jobs.
And then once it's developed, we hope to have good, solid middle class jobs for people in our community or really all over because people can take the bar.
They can take the ferry, all sorts of opportunities.
They can drive if they have to, you know, all sorts of opportunities to come to this incredible development that we hope to see in the future all a result of this zoning change.
So, thank you again.
Thanks to everyone who had a part in this and look forward to taking the vote.
What is the first reading of an ordinance amending title? Twenty three of the Berkeley municipal code and the zoning map to establish the manufacturing research and development zoning district to encourage redevelopment of the former Pacific still casting site adopter resolution approving and adopting the zoning map.
Okay, okay.
The rest of what it says here, you know, West Berkeley plan and general plan amendments to be consistent with the associated ordinance amendments and certifying the E.
I.
R.
Okay, and we have a second from council member.
Thank you so much.
And and council member.
Yes, thank you madam mayor and thank you to the team and thank you for Ronnie.
And when I was when I was first called to serve, I spent a lot of time with the West Berkeley planning.
I've gotten to know some of the folks who worked on it.
And so I I think it's important to say, thank you.
And I really appreciate the care you've all given it, and the significance of the action we might take tonight is not lost on me.
One of my neighbors was one of the workers at the gas station, and he was one of the workers at the gas station.
And so this tonight is meaningful for me personally.
Thank you so much.
I look forward to having great projects with middle class jobs, and I look forward to working with you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
This past fall.
And so this tonight is meaningful for me personally.
Thank you so much.
I look forward to having great projects with middle class jobs and or mediate site and modern uses and all these things.
Because we really, you know, West Berkeley really is the job seat for the city.
And we do have this deep culture of of of industry and innovation.
And I think, you know, it's important for us to keep these these parcels, but for them to be usable and healthy for the community and vital for the city's economy as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, council member council member Humbert.
Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor, and I want to thank council member Casarwani for all her work on this as well as council member Kaplan, who I believe co sponsored the original item, and our planning department and staff for all their hard work on this.
And I want to just associate myself with everything council member Casarwani and council member Kaplan just said, we have an incredible opportunity to not only maximize new jobs and innovation on this site, but leverage that to clean up the contamination.
And it's also paid to provide some measure of relief for the Pacific steel workers.
I guess they've been made whole in terms of their pension balances.
And that's wonderful.
It's truly a win win opportunity for the city of Berkeley.
And I feel confident that the analysis presented in the draft and final is adequate and I'm ready to move this forward.
Thank you.
Thank you, council member O'Keefe.
Very briefly, I just want to say I'm really into any effort that helps bring Berkeley more into the 21st century.
So, that's all my that's my entire comment.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much.
There is a motion on the floor.
Okay, before next item, I'd like to take a 10 minute break, please.
So, thank you.
Can.
Recording stopped.
Oh, sorry.
Hi.
Nice to meet you.
Nice to meet you.
Hi.
Thank you.
Wow, wow.
Welcome.
Yeah.
Interesting.
Sure.
Sure, like, stinking food.
Like, tweetline diagrams are probably more flawed than counsel.
Yeah, this is interesting, definitely.
I mean, I'm kind of lost in most of the conversation, but I catch a few things here and there.
Yeah.
It's cool to have experiences.
I mean, I'm from Columbia.
Oh, wow.
So it's interesting, like, what is going on, and, like, this is how politics appears.
Democracy.
It's democracy in Atlanta.
Democracy in Atlanta.
Some will say.
What district are you in? I'm district four, downtown.
Downtown, oh, okay.
Oh, well, that's fortunate for you.
Yeah, right.
Great.
So, yeah, nice to meet you.
Nice to meet you as well, yeah.
I don't know if you have a car.
I, unfortunately, I don't have a car.
it's going to be heavy.
Recording in progress.
Recording in progress.
Recording in progress.
Recording in progress.
Okay, I think we can start.
Do we have the captioner with us? I think she's linking.
Okay, Mayor, we can start whenever we're ready.
All right.
Are we ready, folks? Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Someone from the crowd said yes.
So I think it's time.
All right.
We are going to start.
We're going to call back into session and we are going to come back to number nine.
The Zab appeal for 3000 Shattuck Avenue.
And we are going to start here with a presentation.
So no, wait, no, we are not.
That's right.
Thank you.
We're not starting a presentation.
People who need to recuse themselves.
Do you want to.
Okay.
Sorry, it's the heat.
I'm going to blame it on the heat.
I think it's just like a long, hot day.
Go ahead.
Which one of us.
Okay.
Okay.
Given I was one of the decision makers at the, on this matter at the zoning adjustments board, I would like to recuse myself as well from participating in this.
Okay.
I have a surprise for everyone.
Given that I was one of the decision makers on this matter at the zoning adjustments board, I would like to recuse myself from participating at this juncture and.
Sorry, guys.
Okay.
I'm going to wait until they leave and then I will allow you to do the presentation.
Thank you for leaving us the candy.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
And good evening again.
Madam mayor and council members.
I'm Jordan Klein.
I'm director of planning and development with me here at the staff table.
Our Allison Riemer associate planner with the projects group.
And, and Hirsch, the latest planning manager.
And presenting for staff is Allison.
Take it away.
Hi, my name is Allison Riemer, and I'm an associate planner with land use planning.
And this is an appeal of a zoning adjustments board decision to approve a use permit to demolish a gas station.
And construct a 10 story mixed use residential building at 3000 Shattuck Avenue.
A use permit was submitted for this site in 2015 and initial study negative declaration was prepared for that project, but that project was not pursued.
The initial study negative declaration was prepared for a five story project with 44 dwellings and 6,000 square feet of commercial space.
A new use permit was submitted in 2022.
The applicant requested an addendum to the previous initial study negative declaration.
Instead of a new initial study appeals of the Zab decision were received from the law firm of Lazo jury LLP on behalf of laborers, international union of North America, local union 304 and 34 people who own or lease property within the vicinity and the law firm of Adams, Broadwell, Joseph and Cardozo on behalf of East Bay residents for responsible development.
The project site is on the Southwest corner of Ashby and Shattuck.
The surrounding area consists of a mix of commercial and residential development ranging from one to 3 stories in height.
Ashby Bart is 0.3 miles to the West.
The site consists of two parcels and is developed with a gas station and mini market.
Okay.
The project would add 166 studio units and 1,000 square feet of commercial space in a 10 story building.
The product is eligible for a density bonus by providing 17 very low income units.
I will not go over every appeal point.
They are discussed in greater detail in the council report.
A lot of the appeal points relate to compliance with the California environmental quality act or CEQA.
The addendum evaluated the changes under the modified project in comparison to the original project against the secret guidelines and found the potential impacts associated with the modified product to be consistent with the potential impacts discussed and mitigated for in the 2018 initial study negative declaration.
In response to the appeals, the city's consultant revised the addendum.
The conclusion of the revised addendum is the same as the 2023 addendum.
No further evaluation of environmental impacts is required for the modified project.
No subsequent environmental impact report is necessary pursuant to the secret guidelines and the addendum is the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation for the modified project pursuant to the secret guidelines.
Increasing the height and number of units does not change the environmental impacts of this mixed use residential project.
The issue of air quality is stated several times in the appeals as related to indoor air quality, reactive organic gas emissions and vehicle emissions.
The addendum has been revised to include a discussion of indoor air emissions of formaldehyde and the modified project does not change the environmental emissions of formaldehyde and the modified project would have less than significant impacts on formaldehyde.
Per the data in the 2023 addendum and the 2025 addendum, the project would not exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds for reactive organic gas emissions.
Construction emissions would also be below Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds.
The addendum has been revised to include a discussion of air quality impacts resulting from the trucking of modular units to the project site and the analysis concludes that site preparation and air quality would still be substantially the same as for traditional construction.
The project site is in the State Water Resources Control Board's database as a leaking underground storage tank cleanup site and was marked as case closed in 2013 and 2014.
Phase 1 and Phase 2 environmental site assessments were conducted in 2022 and soil and groundwater conditions related to hazardous materials have remained unchanged since the initial study negative declaration was prepared and the addendum did not identify any increase or new significant impacts as a result.
The proposed project is required to comply with standard conditions of approval for remediation or removal of toxic materials in preparation for residential development.
The appellants state that the project may be detrimental due to air quality impacts.
The condition of approval air quality diesel particulate matter controls during construction would be enforced during construction.
Non detriment findings are not objective standards and cannot provide a basis for denial or a reduction in density for a housing project due to the Housing Accountability Act.
Several new buildings in the vicinity of the project site have either been constructed, are approved or are pending approval and those changes are expected in an urban area.
A cumulative impact section has been added to the revised addendum.
Eight cumulative development projects within two miles of the modified project were analyzed and the modified project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impacts for any issue area and impacts would be less than significant.
An initial study was prepared for the original project in 2017 and available for public review and input in 2017 and 2018.
The addendum was available in January 23 before the May ZAP meeting.
As discussed in the addendum, pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, LEAHC shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified.

Segment 4

This meeting is being recorded and will be available to the public at any time.
The city of Berkeley will notify negative declaration if some changes or additions are necessary.
None of the conditions in the secret guidelines that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
Appellants are concerned about traffic impacts due to this project and other projects in the area.
Transportation construction plan is a required condition of approval.
Required per state law.
Off-street parking is not required per the Berkeley Municipal Code.
And on-site loading spaces are not required because the commercial use is less than 10,000 square feet.
Land use planning does not regulate on-street loading spaces.
Caltrans would not support a loading zone along the Ashby portion of the project.
A loading zone on the Shattuck side of the project would not be feasible because AC Transit plans to move the bus stop at the northwest corner of Ashby and Shattuck to the southwest corner of the intersection along the project frontage.
Another required condition of approval is a transportation demand management, which includes a transit benefit card for building residents.
The appellants state that since the two projects are different and the proposed construction duration described in the addendum should be different, information on the construction duration and foundation work is from the applicant and they have consulted their general contractor.
The appellants request application of the city's hardhat ordinance, BMC Chapter 13.107.
The ordinance became effective on January 1st, 2024 after the vesting date and the ZAB approval of the project.
Since the hardhats ordinance does not apply, compliance with provisions of that ordinance would be voluntary.
Appellants state that the project is inconsistent with the general plan economic development and employment policies because there is no commitment to provide construction jobs to Berkeley or East Bay residents and no commitment to contribute to an apprenticeship or construction job training program.
They also state that the project is inconsistent with the housing element because less than 20% of units will be affordable.
General plan goals and policies are not objective standards and cannot provide a basis for denial of or reduction in density for a housing project due to the Housing Accountability Act.
Under the city's inclusionary housing ordinance, the applicant may pay a partial in lieu fee if less than 20% of units will be affordable.
The project will provide 17 units on site, which are affordable to very low income households.
Staff recommends council conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt a resolution affirming the ZAB decision to approve use permit ZP 2022-0046 to demolish a gas station and construct a 10-story mixed-use residential building and dismiss the appeals.
I'm sorry.
Oh, and yes, this concludes the presentation.
Okay, thank you.
So I will open the public hearing and also ask if there are any disclosures of ex parte contact.
Oh, go ahead, Vice Mayor Bartlett.
Yes, I spoke to both the applicant and the respondent.
Thank you, I spoke with the appellant.
Oh, yes, okay.
And my staff also spoke with the appellant.
Mayor, I spoke with one of the appellants as well.
Okay, thank you.
And so there are disclosure forms.
Do you have one? Okay.
All right.
Thank you very much.
So moving on, we will take council questions to start.
We go to the appellant first.
Yes, the appellants also get time.
And then the applicant.
So sorry.
Thanks, everyone.
Do the appellants have presentation? Two appellant groups, which each of the appellants has five minutes.
You can share the five minutes how you like.
Okay.
If you like, anybody who speaks during the five minutes cannot then speak again during the regular public comment period.
So.
And please let me know.
Was that clear to folks? So if you each appellant has a five minute public five minute period to comment on on their appeal, anybody who speaks during that five minute period.
I'll say this after the five minute public after the five minute comment periods by the appellants and the applicant, then we do regular public comment.
Regular public comment period.
If you speak during the five minutes, you cannot also then speak during the regular public comment period.
And just to just to clarify.
So for the appellants, if they are within the same party, they're still with They have to be within that five minutes.
Yes, they can divide the five minutes how up how you like between the different parties to the same appeal.
It's up to you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I appreciate you clarifying that.
Good evening.
My name is Les Shipnuck.
I live at 2071 Emerson Street.
My backyard is 50 feet from the project site.
And just about me.
I should say I'm a 40 year veteran of architectural practice and construction management.
I'm well familiar with the kind of construction that's being proposed here.
We've had a wave of apartment buildings going up in Berkeley.
I'm not thrilled with a lot of them.
And they're not nearly enough affordable housing being included.
As I see it, it's largely market rate.
And I'd like to see something done about that.
I'd like to see a change to the extent that this housing benefits the whole community.
I think the different neighborhoods of this town should host it.
And most of this housing is, as you probably know, is located in South Berkeley or West Berkeley.
Now, I have a block I live in.
There's a case in point.
We have three proposed developments on our block.
Flacos down at the lower end, seven stories.
The AME project in the middle of the block scheduled for six stories.
And, of course, the 10 story proposal for 3000 Shattuck.
You know, 10 stories downtown.
Fine.
You know, no problem, but not out in the neighborhoods.
I think the city is making a mistake with this.
I want to talk to you a little bit about the loading.
The loading zone it's been referred to.
There's no loading zone in the plans.
I know the city wants to put it on Shattuck.
Shattuck tapers down from two to one lane right there in front of the building.
Historically, there's been a lot of accidents at this corner.
And, of course, AC Transit wants to put its bus stop also in front of the building.
And what that's going to leave basically is four parking places at the south end of the block up by my end, which is Emerson Street.
And I think the vendors and services people are going to come up to the corner and take a right and use our street as the loading zone.
So I think the city ought to look at Ashby Avenue, which is going to pick up all the parking where the curb cuts for the gas station will be amended.
And I think that can be arranged.
I've talked to them about it and I know that it's possible to make alterations on Ashby Avenue.
So in closing, I say uphold the appeal and make them get this right.
Thank you.
And I cede my time to my neighbor, Paul Dillingham.
So are you part of the same appeal? Okay.
Okay.
So you're not going to use that one minute and 26 seconds.
Yeah, that's fine.
I'm just confirming.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
Are there any..
Another appellant? Yeah.
Actually, we have three appellants.
Okay.
Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, honorable council members.
My name is Kalila Fetterman on behalf of East Bay Residence for Responsible Development.
East Bay Residence is a coalition of local individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the environmental impacts of the project.
The coalition includes UA Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 342, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinklerfitters Local 483, and their members and families who live and work in Berkeley and Alameda County.
We respectfully ask the council to uphold East Bay Residence appeal, vacate the ZAB's approval, and remand the project to staff to comply with CEQA and local land use laws.
East Bay Residence filed this appeal in 2023, almost two years ago, because the ZAB relied on a CEQA addendum that did not address changes in the project and in the surrounding community since the project was approved in 2018.
The new 10-story project before you tonight is more than double the size, is surrounded by major new construction that did not exist in 2018, and has more intense environmental and health impacts that require mitigation.
These are not just minor changes.
Under CEQA, these changes require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, EIR.
The city's decision to rely on an addendum violated the law and deprived the public of a meaningful assessment of the project's impacts.
Just a few days ago, the city released a revised CEQA addendum, which staff claims resolved the issues raised in the appeal.
That is incorrect.
We reviewed the revised addendum with our experts.
It includes an updated analysis of reactive organic gas emissions, but does not resolve any of the other issues, including soil contamination, cumulative impacts, and construction noise.
First, the project site is contaminated with benzene.
The city acknowledges it has not been cleaned to residential standards or residential environmental screening levels.
The revised addendum includes soil samples showing that other contaminants are below residential and commercial industrial thresholds, but not benzene.
The issues raised in the appeal are that the project site does not meet residential screening levels for benzene, the standard conditions of approval did not expressly require cleanup to residential screening levels, and the standard conditions of approval do not require cleanup to occur before construction workers are on site.
These issues are not addressed in the addendum.
Disturbing contaminated soil and building homes above contamination that has not been cleaned to residential standards may pose significant health risks to construction workers and future residents of the project.
Second, the revised addendum does not adequately address cumulative impacts.
Residents' appeals documented the concurrent new development of several other projects, including at least five multi-story projects within 1,000 feet of the project site, three of which may also require cleanup of contaminated soil.
The revised addendum identifies these projects, but does not quantify their reasonably foreseeable impacts, including cumulative air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, toxic air contaminants, noise, and vibration impacts, which may result in cumulatively significant construction impacts.
The city's approach does not comply with CEQA, and staff's conclusion that the project's cumulative impacts are less than significant is not supported by substantial evidence.
Finally, the project's increased height will result in more severe noise impacts.
The revised addendum claims that because the project will be 10 stories tall, it will reduce noise impacts to nearby residents below significance, but that's not supported by evidence in the record.
The project is being built next to two similarly sized projects, including the 10-story 2920 Shattuck project and the six-story 2001 Ashby project.
Our experts found that the rooftop equipment on this project would impact sensitive receptors at those project sites and the surrounding community.
This issue remains unresolved.
East Bay Residence supports local development and believes that housing projects must be built safely and in compliance with law.
This project does not comply with CEQA and is detrimental to the general welfare of workers and city residents.
Residents respectfully request the City Council uphold residents' appeal and remand the project to staff to prepare a revised environmental analysis that discloses these issues and mitigates the project's impacts as required by CEQA.
Thank you.
Mr.
City Clerk, are there other appellants? Yeah.
Who's the third appellant? Pardon? Oh, Victoria.
She's on the sheet.
Okay.
So we'll promote her to panelists.
Victoria.
Yes.
Okay.
Yes.
She's on the.
Okay.
So we'll promote her to panelists.
Victoria.
Yes.
Okay.
Yes.
Okay.
Yes.
Okay.
Yes.
Okay.
Yes.
She's she's on the zoom.
And Victoria should be able to.
To speak.
Okay.
Good evening.
My name is Victoria.
I'm an attorney with the environmental law firm.
I'm here on behalf of the appellant laborers, international union of North America, local union, three or four.
I'm here on behalf of the appellant laborers.
I'm here to support the proposal to the city council.
I'm here to support the proposal to the city council.
I'm here to support the proposal to the city council to grant this appeal.
And return the project to city staff for further consideration of its environmental impacts, including.
Necessary preparation of either a MND or an EIR.
The use of, of an addendum to approve the proposed project by late sequel.
And the agenda is not appropriate.
The city council has not yet considered the proposed project.
It has not yet been studied under the California Supreme court's ruling in San Mateo gardens.
And addendum to a prior negative declaration is improper.
If there is substantial evidence of a fair argument.
That the project introduces new significant environmental impacts.
That have not been adequately addressed or mitigated.
And proposing the.
The addendum, The city council has not yet considered the proposed project.
It has not yet been studied under the California Supreme court's ruling.
And has not yet been considered.
By the city council.
I'm here to support the proposal to the city council to review or offering appropriate mitigation for the projects, potentially significant environmental effects.
First line is indoor air quality expert found in excess.
Cancer risk resulting from the use of formaldehyde and indoor building materials throughout the project.
Without mitigation off gassing up from other height from the project will result in an excess cancer risk to future residents of 120 per million.
Second line, The city council has not yet considered the proposed project.
It has not yet been studied under the California Supreme court's ruling.
And proposing the proposed project to the city council to review or offering appropriate mitigation for the project.
This is a significant impact, which was not addressed by the 2018 negative declaration or the addendum.
And which must be evaluated and mitigated by either an M and D or an EIR.
The addendum has also failed to present any evidence showing that the expanded project will not have significant noise and.
In addition, the addendum did not provide any quantified noise analysis, despite the building substantially increased height and the likelihood of greater noise impacts from the use of a large scale construction equipment.
Similarly, the addendum fails to provide any substantive analysis of the significant aesthetic impacts resulting from the building's increased height and shadow effects.
There's a fair argument that the project will have significant health and indoor quality impacts, which have not previously considered.
And that it may have significant noise and aesthetic impacts, which have not been analyzed either.
My owner therefore respectfully requests that you grant this appeal and return the project to staff for preparation of an M and D or any IR.
Thank you.
For your time and consideration this evening.
Thank you.
Now moving on and to see if there are any council questions.
We have the.
The third response.
Thank you.
Yes.
Is the.
Yeah.
Okay.
Good evening, council members and mayor.
My name is Emily Lieben.
I'm a partner at the law firm Holland and night representing the applicants in responding to these appeals.
I'd first want to thank the stat city staff and consultant for preparing excellent and thorough responses to the concerns raised by the various appellants this evening.
In addition to those responses, Michael tonight is to be sure that the council is cognizant of three major issues to consider while evaluating the merits of these appeals.
The first is as staff correctly pointed out, this is a residential development subject to the housing accountability act.
The housing accountability act is a statute designed and intended to facilitate the production of housing units across the state of California.
And in particular, where a project complies with objective standards, it's strictly limits the conditions under which a council such as yourselves can deny or condition impermissibly a project for residential development.
In this instance, the project does comply with all objective standards when adjusted for state density, bonus law benefits and protections.
At that point, the grounds on which it can be denied or conditioned are limited to where there's a specific adverse public health and safety impact.
Now we've heard from the appellants tonight about some impacts that they associate with the project, but it's important to distinguish between what could be considered a secret impact and what is a specific adverse public health and safety impact under the HAA.
The HAA defines it very particularly.
It is a significant quantifiable direct and unavoidable impact based on objective identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions that were in existence at the time the application was deemed complete.
Nothing that's been identified to date amounts to that level of a significant, excuse me, a specific adverse public health and safety impact.
Without that, there's no basis to deny or impermissibly condition the project doing so would be a violation of state housing law.
Beyond that, we've also heard some statements about housing element consistency in the written material submitted on behalf of the appellants.
I would note first that the housing element approved by this council anticipated for affordable units located on this site.
The project is providing 17.
So forgive the lawyer math, but four times the amount that was anticipated at that time.
The dispute comes from the reliance on the inclusionary housing ordinances in lieu fee for the portion that would be low income housing, as opposed to very low income housing.
The project provides a full 17 units at the very low income level and takes advantage of the current inclusionary housing ordinance in lieu fee to account for those two low income units that have been anticipated in the housing element.
Now the housing element expressly addresses the use of this in lieu fee repeatedly throughout the document.
There is no inconsistency with the housing elements.
And in this case, where we have objective standard compliance and no specific adverse public health and safety impact within the meaning of the HAA, this council's discretion is highly constrained.
Now I think it's also important for the council to finally consider the motivations underlying the appeals that you're hearing tonight.
Two of them are being brought by labor organizations.
Labor of course is a very important stakeholder in our community.
I know that my client, the applicant has engaged in long and thoughtful conversations over the last two years, trying to reach resolution on these issues.
That said, when resolution is not available, we've often seen unions leverage the environmental review process to gain favorable negotiation power.
That's not an acceptable basis for denying or conditioning a housing accountability act eligible project.
Finally, I would also note that we had residents oppose this project on the basis of concerns with the changing nature of their community.
Now I'm very sensitive to those concerns of members of the community.
However, that's what the housing accountability act is designed to address and constrain specifically being not thrilled with apartment buildings going up or not out in the neighborhoods is exactly the sort of subjective concern that the HAA is trying to reduce in order to produce the housing units that we so desperately need.
So when evaluating the merits of these appeals, I encourage the council to consider the constraints of state housing law and how they interact with the ability to uphold these appeals.
The applicant respectfully requests that council deny them on that basis.
Thank you.
Hey, there will be no booing.
Okay.
Now we're going to move on to council questions.
Actually, a council member to happen.
Thank you.
Just for my edification and clarity, SB 33 allows up to five meetings.
Correct.
Three.
Okay.
SB 3 30.
Yeah.
Sorry.
Yeah.
Five meetings.
And this is.
Only this.
Third.
Yeah, because it went to Zab went to DRC.
It didn't need to go to landmarks because the previous project went to landmarks for the demolition referral.
So yeah, I'm just curious.
I'm just curious.
Because this meeting is the third.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
And for the applicant, I'm just curious what.
Engagement or interaction with the neighbors occur to mitigate some of their concerns.
Sorry, I should not have sat down.
I also on the line virtually is one of the developer team to be able to participate in this meeting.
So I'm just curious.
Yes, I'm here.
Council member.
Could you please repeat the question to make sure that.
I can properly address it.
Yes.
Thank you.
I was just wondering if your team could describe what actions or activities you took or engaged in to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors or LA concerns.
Yeah, I think, you know, there was a lot of engagement with the neighbors, which is a very, very important deal.
But there was most of our engagement has been with council members and the.
Union representatives regarding the environmental concerns.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'm happy to discuss any of those.
Discussions, but they're, they're not environmental related.
They were always related to labor discussions.
That wasn't my question, but I have asked my question.
Thank you, madam mayor.
And thank you all the participants here.
These little trials are always interesting.
But I usually, they're very academic for me this time.
It's a bit different.
Because there's benzene in the ground there.
So that's the line of questioning.
I want to kind of explore what the team here, the city team.
So what was the nature, like, what was the, the, the test done? And what year was that? Because the report was a little confusing.
There was a later date that confirmed something in the past, but it didn't seem like it was an actual examination.
The environmental site assessments, phase one and phase two.
We're both done in 2022.
Okay.
And then we'll sell samples, et cetera.
And that's when the testing's done it for a phase two.
During the phase two, that's when testing occurs.
Okay.
And so.
And that was the second one.
The first one was.
2017 23rd, 2015.
Right.
I'm not sure if.
Oh, I think maybe.
You're referring to the.
Like the first secret document.
Yeah, it wasn't, it wasn't clear.
So the, like the, the, the soil assessment.
Okay.
And then the, the, the.
That, that, that we, that we determined the.
The safety and the leakage potentially of the gas tanks, et cetera.
And detected the benzene.
Was that 2022? I think that would have to be 2022.
So, I mean, before.
I either project there was.
Like work with the state water resources control board.
And that's when they marked it as case closed in 2013 and 2014.
And then for this current project, the environmental site assessments were done in 2022.
So can someone tell me.
Can anyone else answer the question? What was done specifically in 2014, 2013 versus 2022.
In terms of testing any of the applicants or.
Okay.
The appellant.
I just want to just drill down on this one.
We can ask.
If you could promote like.
A leader.
I think he's already a panelist.
No, I think there's just put a leader bill.
And Katie green.
We'll say items.
Yeah.
Our SQL consultants.
From rank on consultants are on the line and they might have.
Okay.
Hi, I'm Katie green.
I work with Redcon consultants who assisted the city with.
Regarding the benzene.
There is a.
There are two things that happened.
There was a 2010 case closure summary report.
And that is the document that identified benzene.
And that case closure summary report indicated there was one groundwater sample.
Where that was in a groundwater monitoring well, that was actually off site, approximately 150 feet west of the project site.
The most recent groundwater samples collected from onsite groundwater wells.
Did not contain benzene at concentrations above.
I believe that was 2022.
I can check that year.
Okay.
Can you come back to me when you figure that out? And then I'm curious.
The acceptable limits.
I've read here.
They were for commercial properties.
Originally the site in 2010 was closed to the current land uses.
Commercial industrial screening level.
And then in 2013.
The phase one and phase two documents.
Considered the, the use of the property for residential.
So phase two was the threshold was for residential.
Right.
The amount of benzene shown wasn't actually detected in laboratory limits.
So that's below the residential ESLs as well.
Okay.
And then the phase one and phase two.
Environmental site assessment were below respective.
Screening levels, both residential and commercial industrial.
Except for arsenic, but those are within region.
Regional background concentrations.
And determined to be naturally occurring.
And now assess it onsite.
The second one was on the premises.
The other one was.
150 Feet.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yes, that's correct.
And then the third one was on the, on the site reading from 2010 was the one with.
Some elevated benzene.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Those were good clarifying questions.
Questions from council member Humbert.
Yes, thank you, madam mayor.

Segment 5

It's my understanding, and I think this is probably directed to planning, that, well, let me actually form it as a question.
What needs to be done with respect to potential soil contaminants before a building permit would be issued on this site? So, when they apply for a demolition permit, that's when a hazardous materials building survey is required, so that checks on the existing materials, lead paint, things like that.
And then, when they apply for a building permit, a soil and groundwater management plan is required, and because this is a gas station site, the applicant will need to get approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, so they will, you know, have to develop a plan for, which will involve more testing and checking on any contamination in the soil and deciding where it can, you know, what needs to be removed and where it can safely be disposed of.
Okay, thanks.
And what happens just kind of generally, if there are soil contaminants, you know, during excavation, for example, after that phase, soil contaminants are encountered, what happens in that event? In the event that there's contamination in the soil after a building permit has been approved? Yeah.
Is there a requirement to clean it up? I mean, it's definitely, yeah, the cleanup is required before a building permit can be approved.
So, yeah.
Okay.
Thank you.
Under the oversight of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Thank you.
No, that's all I have.
Thank you.
Okay, so follow up, just to confirm, I want to make sure I understand this from your question, Council Member Humbert, that Council, what we're approving tonight is not building without needing to do this testing, that that testing will still need to be done.
And any remediation work that's necessary.
Is that correct? That's correct.
And that's detailed in condition number twenty six, actually, that's in the conditions of approval talks about, it's titled toxics and it talks about the, the kind of remediation and oversight that Alison just described.
Sure, of course, because people, of course, would be concerned about that.
So, thank you.
Are there other questions? Oh, did you have a question, Vice Mayor that? Yes, thank you.
This was not addressed.
Thank you.
To go back to condition twenty six, as mentioned by staff, the soil and groundwater management plan allows notification of hazardous materials found on site during development.
So, that is, that is too late.
That's after shovels have already gone into the ground.
That, that, that contamination is found and notified and cleaned up.
And so our, our appeal provides that, that the benzene levels are too high and that, that, that notification and cleanup is, is too late under this condition and, and it requires additional analysis and an additional cleanup in a revised environmental analysis.
Can you clarify what you mean by too late? And then, I'm sorry, I see Council Member Blackview also has that.
Sure, so condition twenty six requires, requires notification of any hazardous materials found in soils and groundwater during development.
And so this, this allows the cleanup as it is to stand.
And even though our appeal found that there is exceedances of, of benzene, this would allow these contaminants to maintain on site until construction.
And then at that time, once they have a potential to endanger public safety, then the notification and cleanup occurs at that time.
And that's, that's too late.
Okay.
Council Member Blackview.
Could you, and I just heard you mention something.
So can you talk about what you mean by benzene being too high? Is there a dispute about the benzene concentration? So the, the initial closure report found residential benzene levels, benzene exceeds residential standards and the follow up report also found exceedances of benzene that would endanger public health and safety.
And that's from the report you conducted? No, that's from the twenty twenty two report.
The benzene levels are too high.
So again, I'm just going back to the CEQA consultant because I, again, from Vice Mayor Bartlett's questions.
I just really want to understand this, the benzene piece of this.
Is it too high? Is it not too high? Is it too high for industrial, but not for residential? Is it not too high for residential? Like, just we would love some clarity, I think on that.
Yeah.
Catherine Green, perhaps, or other RENCON staff could maybe clarify that.
On page three of the phase two from twenty twenty two, under the analytical results heading, the report reads concentrations of detected compounds in soil samples were all below their respective residential and commercial industrial environmental screening levels, except for arsenic.
There's no mention here of the benzene exceedance.
Okay, so I would just ask if that data exists, if the appellant, I mean, if you can help me find it, point to it, if there's a dispute about that, I'd love to know, because otherwise it feels like we have an answer.
I just, I want to make sure that we have, we agree on the answer.
We agree on the facts.
That's what I'm just trying to.
I'm sorry, but you can't speak during this time.
Okay, so that's, if there's more clarification on that, I'd love it.
On the cumulative impacts, I'm just curious about the standard on and I know it's objective, but also there's some interpretation about, you know, whether or not it's cumulatively considerable.
How do you determine that? Like, what's the standard for that? How do you measure that? Whether it's cumulatively considerable or not? I think Catherine Green would probably.
Thank you.
No problem.
That's fine.
Thank you.
Hi, hello.
My name is Abe Leder.
I work with Catherine, a RENCOG consultant, supporting your staff.
The SCEQA thought process for cumulative impacts is to determine if there is a significant cumulative impact occurring.
And if there is, does the project's contribution to that impact, is it cumulatively considerable? So, what we did is we looked at the cumulative development scenario, which I think Alison mentioned, it's several projects that rise to the size that should be considered.
And we did not identify a significant impact occurring to which the project would add enough to be a cumulatively considerable amount.
So I know that's a lot of sort of jargon, but that's the thought process we went through.
And so, as regards noise, or traffic, or air quality, or hazards and contamination, we couldn't identify a significant impact to which the project could considerably contribute if it had impacts.
And so that was the conclusion that it did not contribute in that way to rise to a significant impact.
Okay, thank you.
And then the last is more of a global question.
Again, we've heard some criticism that we're not complying with SCEQA in this process, that it's a substantially different project in the current version versus the previous and requires more than an addendum.
Could staff just address that criticism that we're satisfied with the addendum that we're in compliance, or I don't know, again, or city attorney, but just are we in compliance with SCEQA? Is this substantially similar enough project that does not require a new SCEQA analysis and just the addendum suffices? Yeah, so when you're doing a site assessment, you're looking at, okay, what's the, what's there now? It's a gas station and we're going to demolish it.
But then also what's proposed, it's going to be mixed use, mostly residential.
And so we use the SCEQA guidelines, like there's the different issue areas and you look at and using the questions that are asked in the guidelines, what will happen? How is this different from what was going to happen before when there was a kind of similar type of project proposed? And is there something different that requires a environmental impact report or other additional changes? And, you know, when this addendum was done, we added more data that helped, you know, bring up the standards to what's the current practice with SCEQA and we added some SCEQA topic areas because, you know, we were looking at a document that was a little bit outdated.
But still, we're dealing with a mixed use residential project in a developed area, in an urban area, doesn't have, not likely to have the same type of impacts that you might see or, you know, a completely different use in a different location.
Thank you.
Thank you for the detailed answers to some very detailed questions in the voluminous record.
So I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council Member Humbert, did you have another question? I do.
I have two more.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, is it correct that an elevated benzene level was found in the year 2010, but 150 feet away from the site? Is that correct? That's that's what I heard.
Okay.
Is it also correct that subsequent on-site studies from, I think it was in October of 2022, found that on-site benzene was below the level the lab could even report? That is to say it was so small that it would not be considered significant under any of the limits currently in question.
Is that all correct? Okay.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thanks everyone for your questions and to everyone for answering them as well.
I'm going to take public comments.
If you have a public comment, please come up and can we confirm the time that each person will have to speak? Well, the first 10 speakers will have two minutes and then after that, I'll go down to one minute.
Okay, go ahead and come up whenever you're ready.
You will have two minutes to speak.
And just because we have so many folks, just know I am a stickler for timing.
I want to challenge the benzene findings.
I have not read the study itself, but if it is from groundwater, what time of year was it taken? We had a very rainy year in 2022.
You could have had dilution.
I think you're opening yourself up to a lawsuit challenging it.
The original project was 5 stories, 44 units.
The current project is 10 stories, 166 units with 348 residents.
That's a significantly different project and an addendum is not sufficient.
I walk.
I live four blocks from this project.
My office is on down on outline.
I walk the street almost every day twice a day.
The streets are very narrow.
It's small sidewalks.
If you put a bus stop there, there's gonna be a bench.
There's gonna be a garbage can.
If 10% of the residents, 348, 34 people come and go in at one fleet, there's not enough room on your tiny little narrow sidewalk to accommodate people walking because you don't have car parks.
You're expecting people to take public transit or to walk.
So, you're gonna have to provide space for people to do this.
You've got people going to Berkeley Bowl.
They've got their walkers.
They've got their shopping carts.
You've got parents with strollers.
You've got people with their dogs.
It's not accommodating.
It's a significantly different project.
If you're going to put that many people on the corner, you're gonna have to have infrastructure.
There's no setbacks on that building.
So, how are you going to accommodate the ingress and egress of that many people on that corner? I want to remind you that with the number of people who are disabled who live in my community, I have one on my street right now.
A good friend of mine, Fred Lucky, was killed in 2003 in a wheelchair on Ashby Avenue because he didn't fit on the sidewalk.
It was easier for him to go on the street and he was hit by a car and killed.
These are significant issues.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
You can finish your sentence.
I think someone's going to cede some time to me.
Are you? Okay.
Thank you.
I talked to some of the, I sent a letter to my council member and I want to say that I have lived in South Berkeley since 1983 and I'm a walker.
I have a dog.
I have walked all over that neighborhood.
One of the things that is of great concern to me is that we don't have very many parks.
We have the lowest ratio of open space to residents.
We have a high density of residents.
We have the lowest tree cover.
All you have to do is compare Ashby Avenue to Marin and tell me what the difference is.
Our trees are spindly because our sidewalks are narrow.
There's not enough room for the trees.
There's no maintenance.
We have the highest rate of childhood asthma because the amount of traffic in our neighborhoods.
I have asked you point blank, if you're going to put these burdens on my community because housing is a necessity and I'm willing to do my civic duty, what benefits are we going to get? Are we getting more open space? Are we kids getting taut locks? Are you going to reduce, are you going to put air filters on our streets so that we have less auto emissions so that our kids don't have asthma? If you're going to put all those people on that block, then you're going to need to widen that sidewalk.
And the only way to widen that sidewalk, if you don't have setbacks, is you're going to have to close the lane on Shattuck and close the lane on Ashby.
Because that's the only way you can have accommodations.
You cannot expect us to take this density without making changes to the infrastructure and it's unfair to us that we take all the burdens and we get no benefits.
So you need to figure out how we're going to get some more open space so those people in that building can have some open space.
It's a significantly different project.
Five stories, 48 units to 10 stories, 166 units.
An addendum is not sufficient and it needs to be rethought, especially in terms of the infrastructure of the sidewalk.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Next speaker.
Good evening.
My name is Robert Sears.
I live at 3007 Shattuck, directly across from the landing zone that we've been talking about.
New faces here for me.
Mostly, I think, everybody.
We've been talking about it every single public meeting.
All these people coming into this place, come to the corner.
Come to Shattuck and Ashby on a Friday afternoon and you find one, one traffic safety engineer.
If we were a structural engineer, we'd want to see a stamp.
Have the applicants, one person say it's safe.
Yeah, you can't open a passenger door safely.
Excuse me, a driver's door.
Excuse me.
But the point is, it's a busy corner.
There's a lot of accidents.
I've been there a long time.
A long time.
A long time.
It's noisy.
People are nervous.
Okay.
Why doesn't the applicant take some concern for these people who are going to live there? I asked that question.
I think it's just money, but that's just me.
I'm a union carpenter and I see my union brothers are here and I'm sad that so much work has gone on that's been non-union.
I worked in the safety.
I was retired as a foreman.
One of my responsibilities was pedestrian safety.
Where's the crane going to be? Where are they going to lift? Who's the contractor? We had Nibby down the street.
Great old company, union company, did a fantastic job, a non-profit.
Where was their crane? Ask yourself where the crane's going to be, where the truck's going to be.
You're responsible for public safety.
Drive down Ashby to San Pablo and that building on the corner, there was cones in the middle of the street.
They're not there now.
Those cones aren't there now and you're responsible.
Thank you for your comments.
Good evening, Mayor Ishii, council members.
My name is Dave Auerbach.
I'm a neighbor of 3000 Shattuck.
I live about a block away.
SB 330, the Housing Accountability Act, the law that enables 3000 Shattuck to be so tall and so dense and enables this applicant, in their opinion, to demand that we stand down from safety concerns.
SB 330 was passed in 2018 and took effect in January 1st, 2020.
That was over four years ago.
My understanding is that in those four years, there have been no updates to provide additional objective design standards in the zoning code that's applicable to this neighborhood and to this project.
It is this council's failure to act in four long years on objective standards that enables this developer, in their opinion, to bulldoze over this neighborhood's safety and environmental concerns.
CEQA is the last stand of protecting our safety and our environment.
The City Council would do well to consider the strong and well-reasoned arguments.
Excuse me.
The strong and well-reasoned objections of this building's neighbors and the lawyers of several other interested parties.
We lean on CEQA because the council has failed to provide any other means of ensuring the safety and the safe environment of our neighborhood.
I ask this council to stop hiding behind SB 330.
You can't stop 3000 Shattuck with zoning updates.
That's against SB 330.
You can stop the next one.
Please find the political courage to find the middle ground that enables well-reasoned and safe urban development and enables the creation of needed housing while preventing developers from paving this entire neighborhood with 10-story buildings that risk the safety and health of this neighborhood's current and future residents.
Please uphold this appeal and please address objective standards for the future.
Thank you for your comment.
Good evening, Mayor.
Good evening, Council.
My name is Paul Dillingham.
My parents opened a landscape architecture practice across the street from this project on Newbury Street in 1986, and I now run that practice, and my father also lives on Newbury Street.
You can pull it up so you can..
Thank you.
Yeah.
And we've had the great fortune to work with the school district and the city on many projects, including the Tom Bates Sports Center that was my father's project, also Grove Park in our neighborhood.
We've had the great fortune to work with the school district and the city on many projects, including the Tom Bates Sports Center that was my father's project, also Grove Park in our neighborhood.
3,000 Shattuck has struck a nerve in the neighborhood that other projects have not, and I want to ask why, and why you think of it offering bonus points to anyone who can name the nearest tower to this project site that is 114 feet high.
So we've come tonight to ask Council and the Planning Department to provide us the tools to make the next project better.
We're overwhelmingly supportive of housing projects such as the Model Chirac building that is thoughtful and provides affordable housing.
Good projects generally don't need to come here before Council.
So as a city, we've failed.
We failed to make a good project, much less a great project.
If we're going to build 114 foot tall tower, which ones we should be proud of, and people should be celebrating.
I brought a study here, and I have small copies that staff or Council can view showing our neighborhood.
And it shows the scale of what's being proposed in our neighborhood.
And as you'll be able to see, we can build projects that are less than 10 stories or less than eight stories.
They're going up right now.
Thank you for you.
You're giving him your two minutes.
The current system guarantees another undercooked project will come back to Council and soon.
Developers provide us new housing, and the neighbors have the local knowledge and investment to make for good projects.
So I'm asking, what is the best way to use all those energies and time that we're putting into this to make good projects? And I'm putting that question on to you.
We tried to use the tools we have.
So if there's a better form or a better tool, please advocate for it.
If there is no better form than tonight, then please, you know, here are few consideration to the poor outcomes of this project, of this planning process for this project and for the next project.
And stepping back from the site, the neighbors are also asking Council to acknowledge our concerns and to state a position that this project shouldn't set a precedent of setting a low bar for up and coming projects.
Let's set a high bar.
And lastly, current development is concentrated in some neighborhoods.
The impacts are concentrated in some neighborhoods.
If Council approves this project or the next project, please provide more resources to our neighborhood for traffic improvements, crime, safety, noise, and open space, as my colleague mentioned.
And planning resources such as public meetings to address our concerns.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Todd Darling is online and has ceded me his minutes if I need it.
Go ahead.
Okay.
So the staff report states that this project is going to house over 300 residents in 166 units, I think it was.
The original project was 48 units, which was far less than 300 residents.
That is already reason to really question whether the impacts are going to be much larger and whether it needs to be looked at some more.
I want to talk about the traffic problems on Shattuck.
300 people will create trash and the trash room empties.
The design of this project has a trash room closest to the south side of the building, which means that the trash dumpsters are going to come out onto Shattuck and there is no loading zone.
Shattuck is one lane.
There's a bicycle.
I mean, sorry, there's a bus stop that's going to be there.
Where is the trash going to get picked up for 300 residents every week? And how is that not going to back up traffic on Shattuck? When you have other buildings that are being proposed very close by the cumulative, the cumulative impact of all of those people and all of their trash is going to have an effect on the traffic.
The other thing is with no driveway or pull out, where are these people going to get their deliveries? There are there's no parking and the EIR falsely assumes that with no parking in the building, it means no cars will be used.
But everyone knows that these people will get delivery because they have no car to go pick up supplies.
So they'll be using ride share.
They'll be using Uber Eats.
They'll be using ride shares to get to where they're going.
Where is the pickup? There is no loading zone on Ashby.
It's already been said by staff.
There's no loading zone on Shattuck.
So does the person online give her her.
Yes.
One more minute at least.
Todd Darling is given.
OK, give me Todd's Todd's.
OK, thank you.
So, you know, having the EIR say that there is no impact from automobiles does not take the recurrent reality into, you know, in mind.
The second thing is the bike room.
The bike room is empties out right next to the front lobby.
There are sixty two bike parking spaces in this building.
So every day, sixty two bikes are going to come out from the front door of this building onto Shattuck Avenue on that narrow sidewalk that we've been talking about.
There is no bike lane on Shattuck.
There is no bike lane on Ashby.
Ashby is state route thirteen.
You're going to have sixty two bikes coming out onto state route thirteen.
And you don't think that that is a safety hazard waiting to happen.
The nearest bike lane is on Russell and on Milvia to get to there.
You have to cross this intersection to get to where you're going.
That is a safety hazard waiting to happen, and the city will have to be facing that sort of issue.
My final point, I have to bring up the affordability again.
We talk about this every building that comes up in South Berkeley.
Even the two, even if you count it as two units that are not being built in this building, the fee that they're going to be paying is going to be far less than what can build even half a unit somewhere else.
We have Ashby BART coming up.
We need all the money that we can get.
You really need to increase the affordable housing mitigation fee.
That's all.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Next speaker.
And you still have your full two minutes since you took it from the person online.
Thank you.
I'm Tony Drummond.
Thank you.
I'm Tony Drummond.
I am a scientist by training, and actually, my property is next.
Part of my property is next to this project, the proposed project.
And one of the things that my neighbors have been addressing is the issues of safety and environmental concerns.
Obviously, that's one of the main issues for me.
And on the issue of safety, the traffic just in that area has increased.
And I do walk, as one of the neighbors mentioned earlier.
And I was the victim also of a hit and run that the Berkeley police has not been able to solve, despite that there were cameras involved in this accident.
So it's not just a narrative.
This is substantial.
And this is a result of what has happened in just the last three years in our area.
That strip of Shattuck coming in and out of Ashby, all the way toward and towards Alcatraz, the traffic is backed up.
I heard very nice ideas.
We all want to move to the 20th century, 21st century with policies.
But about increasing housing is also about the safety of the people that live there.
And we live there, and we have all been in danger.
It's not people walking or taking BART.
So you're not putting parking, but people are taking Uber.
So the number of leaf maneuvers in the area has increased.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Next speaker.
Mark, just sorry.
Mr.
City clerk, how many people have we had so far? Okay, just so you know, because it's not just me.

Segment 6

I joined the union because of the benefits and the pay, you know, but being more involved in it now, I realize that it's more than just a matter of time yielded, but I just want to make sure folks know.
Go ahead.
Hi, Mayor, Council.
My name is Josh Reyes.
I'm a Berkeley native, born and raised in the city.
I'm currently an apprentice electrician for the IBW Local 595.
I joined the union because of the benefits and the pay, you know, but being more involved in it now, I realize that it's more than just that.
It's making sure that there's fair wages in the construction workforce because a lot of people don't respect that.
So knowing that this developer is coming into town and going to hire out-of-state contractors is pretty bad, not just for electrician workers in general, but for me, who is like trying to learn the skill and trying to eventually become an electrician myself, start a business in the area, start a family.
So when we have all these contractors coming in and bringing down the wages, it's going to make it harder for us to want to continue in this and find different means of income.
That's pretty much all I have to say about the topic.
I'm going to yield my time to EJ.
Thank you.
Okay, EJ, you'll have three minutes then.
The remainder of two, sorry.
Thank you, because you're the 11th.
I'll take three if you'll give me three.
Maybe someone else will give you a minute.
Go ahead.
Good evening, council members.
My name is EJ Sire, and I'm here on behalf of East Bay residents for responsible development.
I speak as an advocate for the local construction workforce to be paid family supporting wages and benefits for creating opportunities for Berkeley's youth and at-risk workers to gain a middle class as a union apprentice.
I've also been entrusted by your residents and my members to encourage policies and practices that result in a higher quality of life in the communities that our members live in.
Our group filed a CEQA appeal on the proposed project at 3000 Shattuck Avenue, and we're urging the city to prepare a full EIR since this project's lack of appropriate mitigations endangers our members, which is also your residents, both as being part of the construction workforce and, like you just heard from Josh, members of your community.
Already due to our comments, the city has resolved an air quality concern by correcting errors in the analysis of the RG emissions.
I want to appreciate the reference to the 2022 report, because on page 64 of Addendum B, it actually states that the site remains contaminated.
It was only remediated to commercial, not residential.
Benzene levels are still more than 12 times the safe limit for residential use, so I'm confused at the fact of benzene being undetectable part of the 2022 report when page 64 of Addendum B literally shows that it's not safe for my workers to put shovels in the ground.
Having to work on construction sites that are not fully remediated is a principal reason construction workers have a higher rate of cancer than almost any other profession.
Six other major projects are proposed within three blocks of the site.
The impacts from these other projects were not analyzed in the original or revised environmental document, and together they will create serious cumulative impacts in terms of noise, air quality, and traffic.
On top of that, the project does fall short in the city's affordable housing goals, providing only 10% on-site affordable units.
Far below the 20%, paying an in-lieu fee is not enough when we're facing a housing crisis the way that we are in the Bay Area.
We've been one of the city's biggest advocates for housing, but it has to be safe, environmentally responsible, and aligned with the city's long-term plan goals.
We urge you to uphold the appeal and require a full EIR for this project.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I feel great.
Lynn and Sophia? Okay.
Three minutes.
My name is John Dalrymple.
I'm here with East Bay Residents for Responsible Development.
I think I've lived over 30 years.
In the 30 years, I've lived in Berkeley in four districts.
So I just wanted to mention a little bit about East Bay Residents Responsible Development, but what wasn't said is we're probably one of the premier pro-housing advocacy groups in the region.
Fifteen years ago, or 16 years ago, I had my first meeting on the downtown plan.
We had a few dozen of the members of the representative unions out walking in support of it.
They voted in the various unions to donate $25,000 to defend the downtown plan.
This was 15 years ago.
We have been active in almost every community in every city, probably about 25 different cities, supporting specific plans that encourage sustainability and equitable outcomes.
Part of that sustainability is why we've connected to following these comments, because it is true construction workers get cancer more than others, and we would not back down from legitimate.
I want to read you something.
This was sent to us by the developer today.
If you or any applicant continue to actively oppose the project, particularly through CEQA process, we will be forced to immediately terminate all engagement with any union subcontractors involved in the pre-construction process.
We were threatened today if we came and stood by our principles and defended the right of a construction worker to work in an environment that will not cause him cancer, that he was going to disengage with anybody in the all unions of contractors.
Now, we'll have attorneys look at this and see if it's kind of a threat from a legal threshold it is.
But let me rest assured, by voting to support us, all that does is for several months, within six months, typically, this will be back to you for approval.
And we're not going to appeal it because there's been the review that's been done that's necessary.
All this is doing is ensuring that what the law is correctly applied.
That's all we're asking.
It's not a vote against housing.
Right.
It's a vote for doing it right.
You know, we made a decision to come tonight knowing that some workers are going to lose their jobs on this project because he told us explicitly in writing.
You know, it's it's despicable that they expect us to back down under threats of taking work away from people who really need it.
But we want to stand by our principles.
We ask you to stand with us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there other comments online? Yes, there's two hands raised.
First is Cheryl Davila, former council member.
I know it pains you to say that, but yes, Cheryl Davila, actually, former council member Cheryl Davila.
Thank you.
It's interesting how this is playing out, but I think you need to listen to the people that are looking out for the safety and well-being of Berkley and the community at large.
Thank you.
I mean, when I listened to the presentation, y'all didn't even sound really convincing.
Sounded more scared and than anything to you didn't sound like you were telling the truth, which is interesting.
And that's just my opinion, but didn't sound like you meant what you were saying.
Are you.
Thank you for your comments.
Your time is up.
Is there another comment? Yeah.
The next commenter is Tony.
Good evening, council members, staff and friends and neighbors.
I urge you to deny delay or whatever you can do to ensure that the safety of Berkeley residents and visitors will not be sacrificed by a building that is far too big for that intersection.
And I would like to, and I think Janice's comments were very, very good.
I'd like to talk just a little bit in the little time I have about the history of Ashby Avenue.
Ashby Avenue was once a street, a central street in the original black community settlement in the area of King and Ashby.
And then in 1935, it was made into a state route and then later a highway and it bifurcated the black community, the original black community in Berkeley.
It's a very dangerous street because it becomes constricted and widened.
Thank you for your comments, Tony.
Your time is up.
Got it.
Bye.
Tony, Carol's giving you a minute.
Are you still there? I certainly am.
Okay, go ahead and finish your thought.
Okay.
I didn't make a list of the various different deaths by auto accident that happened along Ashby Avenue, but I remember quite a few of them.
And the reason that Ashby Avenue is so dangerous, it's not uniformly the same width.
And in fact, if you go all the way down to the freeway, that underpass under the railroad track is another constriction.
The Caltrans wants to put in a roundabout, but they can't do anything about the railroad track.
So Ashby Avenue from the beginning to the end is a real problem for Berkeley.
And you're going to make this intersection very dangerous for everybody.
And I tremble when I think of a 10 story building with that many people going up on that particular intersection.
It's the most constricted intersection along Ashby Avenue.
Thank you.
Thanks, Tony.
Thanks for your comment.
Okay.
Any other public comments? We have one more commenter, Kelly Hammergren.
It seems like it seems like such a surprise that we haven't solved the problems with this project from when it first appeared.
And one of those problems was the loading zone.
And just in that intersection, coming up Ashby and turning right, I think everyone here knows what it's like to have the Amazon Prime and the UPS trucks everywhere stopping to load and unload good.
And this is a problem that's frequently discussed at the design review committee is having adequate loading and unloading zones and we seem to keep making the same problem over and over with these large projects.
So, I would suggest that we, at the very least, solve that problem.
Kelly I'm sorry your time is up.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other public comments.
That's all.
Okay, is there a motion to close the public hearing.
Second.
Okay.
Shall we do that on unanimously.
Okay.
We are closing the public hearing unanimously then thank you and moving on to Council deliberations with Councilmember Taplin.
Thank you very much Madam Mayor and thank you everyone who spoke and thank you to staff.
I'll just preface this by saying, Council is united in our commitment to road safety across the city, including in South Berkeley.
This is a pro housing Council.
If I may say so, the Mayor, Vice Mayor and myself all share a commitment to deepening the city's investment in South Berkeley in terms of green space.
And I'll speak personally that I do support adaptive design standards and would support Council and staff moving forward with that as a project.
That's on the agenda tonight.
I don't support that because I think it would, it would block multifamily construction.
I was, I support it because I think that it will allow the community to collectively determine our built environment and allow neighbors to decide how they want their neighborhoods to look.
And I've seen that take place in my district and other districts.
I've seen developers work with neighbors, with labor stakeholders to really create beautiful, satisfying projects that that are responsive and sensitive without threats, without strong arming and without dishonesty.
I'm a little surprised that the 5 meetings wouldn't have been exhausted to mitigate or resolve some of these outstanding disagreements between the parties here.
And I don't think state law, I don't think the intent of state law is to allow cities to run roughshod over the environmental concerns of communities or the very legitimate work site safety concerns of construction workers or other workers.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Other council members or vice mayor.
Thank you.
And I thank you for the comment.
And I just want to back up and I'll support the and join myself to come to my colleague, Councilman Chaplin.
Yes, of course, we have taken unprecedented actions and street safety, and there are more coming, and we are pro housing.
We shifted the city into producing housing, and as a result, displacement is down, rents are down at least 25%.
And so we're doing our duty here, but I want to remind all of us here that we have a higher duty to maintain the safety of people.
And, you know, here I'm looking at the documents that page 64 of 72, the benzene levels.
I wish I could show my screen here, but, you know, if the support says, I mean, there's there's a number here.
If there is any indication of benzene in the soil there and adjacent to it, I mean, the gas station is old.
It's an independent gas station.
So it's not like your, your shell structure, right? It's a mom and pop gas station.
No offense for listening.
Gas station owners.
I love you, but let's be honest here.
It's definitely not great.
And it has never been and, you know, the tanks are massive and degrading.
I'm sure I've been involved in circle cases before, which is the super fund super fun law and use around around dry cleaners.
Also, very, very, very dangerous, toxic places.
But so this gas station is across the street from a family who lives there with children, and I just don't see it within me to risk their lives on some disputed data.
We could possibly get that remediated and have it be made sure to be made safe.
So, again, while I appreciate the applicant and their efforts to bring housing to South Berkeley, and while I won't join their community outreach efforts in this context, it's not going to be appropriate.
I will, however, state that without without equivocation, the risk to children living there in the new building to workers digging it to neighbors is more than another risk.
I don't want to take.
So that's my thoughts right now.
Thank you.
Vice mayor council member.
Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.
Let me get my closer to me.
I want to thank staff for their work on this long running and complicated project and especially thank director client as well as Allison Reimer and Ann Hirsch.
I believe that lay on the fall and Shannon Allen were on this, but are no longer with the city and this project has been a long time in process.
So, I thank them as well.
I want to thank the applicant and the appellants for the time and effort they put into planning and analyzing this project.
Accountability is important in general and on sites with a history of use that includes petrochemicals.
It's necessary to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to ensure the site is appropriately prepared for new development.
Having reviewed the appeal point staff's responses included documentation and having listened to the presentations and testimony this evening, in which it is very clear to me that there are not significant levels of benzene on this property.
I'm going to support the staff's recommendation, but I have a few more comments I'd like to make.
I've cut down my comments pretty significantly.
My understanding is that given the development in the surrounding area, since the project was first proposed, the city has added a new section to the addendum that analyzes cumulative impacts of eight nearby development projects.
Their analysis concludes that cumulative impacts would remain less than significant and I see no clear evidence of anything to the contrary contrary.
And I think this is important adding housing near our bus lines.
There are at least three and perhaps four bus lines that are that are very close to this project and Bart stops.
Bart's a long block away Ashby Bart.
Well, maybe a long block and a half.
That's precisely what our various planning and housing documents have envisioned and enabling more people to live close to transit jobs, shopping and other urban amenities.
Berkeley Bowl, for example, decreases all manner of impacts, including reductions to car traffic, air pollution, emissions and vehicle noise from commuting and more infill development.
And this is a point that we need to be cognizant of decreases environmental impacts and farm and wild lands at the urban periphery.
The UN body a couple of years ago, responsible for analyzing environmental issues, said concluded that the best thing that cities can do is is dense infill housing because that limits that limits commutes and hence pumping carbon into the environment.
My overall assessment is that the city appears to have followed proper procedures and address the substantive concerns raised in the appeal.
If the three appeals through the original environmental studies, additional analysis and the standard conditions of approval, while the appeals rates understandable concerns about the project size and potential impacts.
They don't appear to identify a clear procedural error or sufficient evidence of significant environmental impacts that would legally require the city to overturn sabs appeal.
Therefore, I, I will vote to reject the appeal and affirm the decision decision of the zoning adjustments board.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
Thank you.
Council member Humber.
You're welcome.
Okay.
So, first, I also want to say thank you to staff.
Thank you for being here.
So late.
Thank you for all your work.
I know that a lot goes into the reports and the presentations and that it can be complicated to answer some questions on the fly.
So I want to start by saying thank you to all of you.
And also, you know, for me, there were two concerns that I had, especially around the environmental issues and also around labor.
But I think it sounds like the project was analyzed for the residential uses in 2022 and that there are still opportunities.
This is the main thing for me, excuse me, that there are still opportunities for mitigation issues to be addressed during the permitting process and that the doors enclosed for us to address the environmental issues.
And so that's not what we're talking about today.
So I really want to make sure I highlight that.
I really want to encourage this project to still use local union labor.
And I really want to strongly condemn the statement from the applicant.
If that was accurate about threats to not use union labor, housing is one of my top priorities.
And it's it is for so many people in our city.
It's really imperative that we take advantage of these density bonuses.
And I also just want to say, like, I'm very surprised to hear one of our speakers speak in support of the appellants, given how I know that she told me she was really concerned about her son, who wasn't able to afford to live in in Berkeley.
And this is a project that provides 17 very low income units.
I myself live in South Berkeley.
I'm very supportive of us building more housing, especially so close to Bart and our different bus stations.
I hear the concerns around street safety.
That's also one of my concerns.
And so just know that just because this project here doesn't mean we're going to ignore the work that needs to be done to make our streets safer.
Excuse me, I'm sorry, but you cannot speak during this time.
If you want to speak afterwards, I'm happy to talk to you, but it's not appropriate to speak out.
Additionally, our Zab approved this with an 8 to 0 vote with one absence, and I support the position of our Zab commissioners.
I think that's also really essential.
I would also much rather have an apartment building with neighbors instead of a gas station.
So if we're concerned about environmental harm, we need to think about the fact that this is being a gas station.
It's continuing to be a gas station and that has its own environmental harms to its neighbor to our neighborhood.
So, is there a motion? Yeah, I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution affirming the zoning adjustment board decision to approve a use permit to demolish a gas station and excuse me and construct a 10 story mixed use building utilizing a state density bonus request with 166 dwellings, including 17 very low income units and 1000 square feet of commercial space.
And dismiss the appeals.
Second.
Any other comments? I'm going to ask that our city clerk called roll, please.
Okay.
Council member Kisarwani? Yes.
Council member Kaplan? No.
Bartlett? No.
Trago is recused.
O'Keefe is recused.
Blackaby? Yes.
Lunaparra is recused.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Motion fails.
So, excuse me.
As I mentioned, I'm happy to speak with you afterwards.
So, there are no more items left on our action calendar with this.
Sorry, do you have a question? Yeah, I had a question of the city clerk.
Sure, please go ahead.
And Mr.
Clerk, can you tell me what the failed motion has in terms of what effect it has on the ZAB determination? I think the city attorney has the city attorney.
I can respond.
So, the ZAB decision stands unless the council takes up the item again within 30 days under BMC section 23.410.040 section I.
Thank you.
Okay.
So, now that we've completed everything on our action calendar, is there public comment for items not listed on the agenda? Go ahead.
I'd like to know what you guys are going to do about safety on the sidewalks and the fact that that's dangerous.
And I will make a threat and I will make a promise.
I'm a tort attorney.
If anyone gets hurt on that sidewalk because you did not mitigate and provide adequate safety sidewalks, I will contact that victim and encourage them to sue the city of Berkeley for every cent you have, because it's not right for you to endanger pedestrians.
And that's exactly what's going to happen.
I remember my friend Fred Lupke's death, and there are other people who've been hit.
So, what are you going to do concretely to make the sidewalk safe for pedestrians and elderly people and handicapped people who need to walk? Yes.
A question or? No, a comment.
Can I suggest sincerely, very sincerely, that you find the funds to put yourself on a transportation hub? The bus is here every 20 minutes, and I know you guys never stay till 1130 or so, do you? You never stay late to where the buses stop running.
Why don't you find a million or $2 and find some place up by Milvia or some place where people who don't drive, some place where people who don't need to worry about parking can come? I know there's a lot of parking here.
It's wonderful, isn't it? A thousand units in South Berkeley.
We might not have any parking in five or six years.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
You guys do great work.
Thanks.
Any other public comments? Online? Yes, one online.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Blair Beekman.
Hi, Blair Beekman.
Thanks for the meeting tonight.
It looks like you worked out best practices.
Thank you.
Good luck in upcoming future meetings and continuing the concept of working on projects in good terms.
Thanks a lot.
Thank you.
Other public comments online? None.
Okay.
I'm going to ask for a motion to adjourn, and also just a reminder that we are adjourning in memory of Marty.
So, I keep forgetting to say that at the end of the meeting.
Is there a motion? So moved.
Second.
Okay.
And can we adjourn unanimously? Thank you.
All right.
Thanks, everybody.
9-57.
All right.
Okay.
All right.
Thanks, everybody.
9-57.
All right.
Recording stopped.
It's already bumper to bumper Sunday morning.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.