Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2025-04-23 19:04:18 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_cd3dd017-8dc1-4f81-b8e9-c08272e8f0bd.ogg

Segment 1

Hello everyone, it is 6.04 and we're going to get this show on the road.
Are you ready? Just about.
Let's make sure we are recording.
Recording in progress.
Okay, we're all good, Rose? Okay.
Hi, everyone.
Sounds like we're ready to go.
I'm going to call to order the Tuesday, April 22nd special meeting of the Berkeley City Council.
We have a quorum here.
Let's take roll, please.
Okay.
Council member Kesarwani is currently absent.
Council member Taplin? No, I'm actually here, Mr.
City Clerk.
I need to use one of those authorized excuses to be doing the meeting via Zoom.
Yes.
Okay.
Well, right after the roll, we will go through the script.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
And that's okay.
Let's start over.
Council member Kesarwani is present.
Council member Taplin? Present.
Present.
Council member Bartlett is currently absent.
Council member Tregub? Present.
O'Keefe? Present.
Blackabay? Here.
Lunaparra? Here.
Humbert? Here.
And Mayor Ishii? Here.
Okay.
So Council member Kesarwani is participating in the meeting remotely pursuant to the Brown Act as amended by AB 2449 under the Just Cause justification.
A quorum of the Council is present and participating in person at a physical location that was noticed on the agenda and is open to the public and within the boundaries of the agency.
Actually, Vice Mayor Kesarwani, if you could provide a general description of the circumstances relating to your need to appear remotely.
That would be medical diagnosis, family caregiving need, or communicable disease.
Yes, my reason is a family caregiving need.
Okay.
And Vice Mayor Kesarwani, if you could disclose whether there are any individuals 18 years of age or older that are present with you in the room, and if so, what their relationship to you is.
No, there is nobody over 18 in the room with me.
Okay.
And Vice Mayor Kesarwani will participate through both audio and visual technology.
So that satisfies the requirements of the Brown Act, and we can proceed with the meeting.
Thank you.
I want to check and see if any Council members have any ex parte contacts that they'd like to disclose.
Okay, I know Council Member Taplin is not in the room, so I want to just check back in with him before he, just in case.
But I do want to disclose that my staff have met with both the applicant and the appellant to discuss their perspectives on the project.
And I've submitted the paperwork for that as well.
And Council Member Trajkub has his hand raised.
Oh, thank you.
I can't see that.
Council Member Trajkub? Our office met with several neighbors in several districts for constituents, both in opposition to the project, as well as in support of the project.
And Council Member, I don't know if you've submitted that documentation, but just want to make sure that you do that to the clerk.
Yeah, I did not receive the form, but would be happy to complete it forthwith once received.
Yes, Council Member O'Keefe.
I met with Patrick Kennedy.
I'll submit the paperwork.
Thank you very much.
And clerk, I just want to make sure that Council Member Trajkub can still get his documentation in.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, Council Member Navarro.
Thank you.
My staff spoke with the appellant and I spoke with the applicant and I'll fill out the paperwork also.
Thanks.
And likewise, my team and I met with the appellant about eight weeks ago.
I think we've filled out the paperwork, but I'll make sure we do.
Okay, thank you.
Okay.
And just so we're clear, because Council Member Kaplan's not in the room, if he has met with someone, will we just..
I just want to make sure he gets a chance to disclose in case he has.
Make that disclosure before we open the public hearing.
Okay, thanks.
And yes, Council Member O'Keefe.
Sorry, I also met with the members of the Save the UA.
Okay, great.
All right.
Thank you all so much.
We are going to now move on to our action calendar, which just has one item for tonight, which is the ZAB appeal for 2274 Shattuck Avenue.
And we're going to start this evening, just so folks know, we're going to start the evening with a staff report.
We'll have a presentation from the appellant for five minutes, a presentation from the applicant for five minutes, and then we'll open up for public comment before taking Council comments and questions at that time.
So just so folks are clear about what the structure is for this evening.
So we're going to start with the staff report.
There's no non-agenda public comment at a special meeting of the City Council, only at a regular meeting of the City Council.
Thank you, Mayor, and good evening, Council Members.
I'm Jordan Klein.
I'm Director of Planning and Development, joined here at the staff table by Anne Hirsch, the Land Use Planning Manager, and Sharon Gong, Principal Planner on our projects team.
And Sharon is going to be making the presentation on behalf of staff.
Thank you, Jordan.
Good evening, Mayor Ishii, Council Members, and the public.
This hearing is for the appeal of the ZAB decision to approve Use Permit ZP2023-0079 for a project at 2024 Shattuck Avenue.
I'm Sharon Gong, the Staff Project Planner.
I will give an overview of the project as approved and then present the main appeal points and staff's response.
The project site is an irregular L-shaped parcel located within the Downtown Area Plan in the CDMU Downtown Mixed-Use District corridor sub area with its main frontage on Shattuck Avenue and its secondary frontage on Bancroft Way.
The project site is surrounded by commercial, residential, institutional, and mixed-use residential buildings ranging in height from one to five stories.
The site is currently occupied by a State Historic Landmark, the United Artists Movie Theater, which was originally constructed in 1932 and which operated as a movie theater venue until its closure in February 2023.
The project proposes to demolish the movie theater, except for the front façade on Shattuck Avenue, as you see here along Shattuck, which will be preserved and restored, and the theater lobby behind it, that's the one-story volume behind the façade on Shattuck, which would be renovated and repurposed and incorporated into the new building as a cafe.
The project's Senate Bill 330 preliminary application vested the site's historical resource status as not a city landmark in November 2022.
This vesting by state law prohibited the Landmarks Preservation Commission from denying the demolition of the theater or from imposing conditions related to a cultural or historic resource protections on the project.
The demolition of the theater was referred to LPC for review under the use permit application.
In addition, a landmark initiation application was submitted in December 2023 by Save the UA Theater Organization, who is the appellant in this appeal.
The UA Theater was designated by the LPC as a city landmark in March of 2024.
In its review, the LPC considered the request to designate..
I'm sorry, staff.
We need to take a brief recess.
Something's come up.
Okay.
Excuse us.
Recording stopped.
Recording resumed.
So sorry about that, Sharon.
Sorry to interrupt you.
So Council Member Taplin needs to recuse himself.
He's going to read a statement, and I just want to make sure we take care of that before we go any further.
Even though I have not been advised..
Recording in progress.
Even though I have not been advised of a conflict, I am recusing so as to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.
Good evening.
Okay.
I think we can continue on with the presentation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
In its review, LPC considered the request to designate the entire theater building, including interior elements, as a city landmark, but chose to designate only the building facade and its decorative detail as the distinguishing features to be preserved.
In its designation, the LPC specifically identified the upper portion of the Shattuck Avenue building facade and its decorative features, seen here on the slide, as the character-defining feature that should be preserved and restored.
The project's impact on cultural resources under CEQA, however, was not affected by the LPC's designation.
To give a bit of legislative framework for the CEQA discussion, I'll provide some information on the State Housing Accountability Act and Assembly Bill 1633.
The Housing Accountability Act is a state law that was enacted in 1982 that promotes infill development and that streamlines housing development in the state.
AB 1633 is a law that became effective in January 2024, which made revisions to the Housing Accountability Act to allow developers to claim that a violation of the HAA was made if the local agency fails to determine exemption from environmental review or CEQA for a project when the project is eligible.
The UA Theatre Project applicants submitted an AB 1633 notice on March 4, 2024, along with technical reports to support an exemption from CEQA for the project.
On October 4, 2024, after reviewing all evidence on the project record, staff determined that the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA because the project meets all of the requirements for the infill exemption.
Further, staff determined that the project would not result in a substantial adverse change to the historical resource due to the preservation and restoration of the main character-defining feature of the resource, namely the upper shattered facade.
And therefore, the project would not meet the criteria for the historical resource exception to the exemption, which would have disqualified the project from using the infill exemption.
On December 12, 2024, the Zoning Adjustments Board approved the use permit to demolish the theatre, preserving the shattered façade and the theatre lobby, and construct a mixed-use building that is 17 stories, 183 feet in height, has 227 dwelling units, 23 very low-income density bonus qualifying units, approximately 8,000 square feet of usable open space, and is designed to accommodate all of the project's facilities.
Here is a comparison of the existing theatre façade and the proposed building façade with the new 17-story volume behind it.
This comparison shows how the project proposes to preserve and restore the main character-defining feature of the theatre that was identified by the LPC in its landmark designation.
On January 13, 2025, the City Clerk received a letter of appeal for the ZAB's decision from Susan Brandt-Hawley on behalf of Save the UA-Berkeley.
Next, I'll be summarizing the main points of the appeal letter and staff's response to each.
In the first appeal point, the appellant asserts that the UA Theatre is a mandatory historic resource via its listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, that its historic status encompasses more than the façade, and that substantial demolition of the theatre would cause a substantial adverse change in its historic significance.
The City recognizes that the UA Theatre building is a historic resource, as defined in the CEQA guidelines, and that the building as a whole was designated by the City of California to be a historic resource.
In the second appeal point, the appellant asserts that the UA Theatre is a mandatory historic resource via its listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, that its historic status encompasses more than the façade, and that substantial demolition of the theatre would cause a substantial adverse change in its historic significance.
And that the building as a whole was designated in the California Register of Historical Resources in 2006 by the State.
However, the applicant has submitted substantial evidence that the building has been significantly altered over time, such that its character-defining features no longer convey the site's significance.
The Historic Resource Evaluation extensively evaluated the history of alterations to the building and found significant loss of integrity that negates the property's ability to convey significance.
The Project Impact Analysis evaluated the building's current condition and proposed project's consistency with applicable Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation.
The PIA concluded that the project would not cause substantial adverse change to the remaining character-defining features of the theatre building that still convey significance, namely the upper front façade, and that the proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation.
To make the CEQA determination for the project, staff reviewed all of the evidence in the record, including project application materials, plans, and technical reports, city consultant peer reviews of the submitted technical reports, including the historic resource reports, the LPC's landmark designation notice of determination and findings, city attorney guidance, and city council's deliberations at the closed session meeting held in September 2024.
Staff also considered the city consultant's revised PIA, which recommended, contrary to the applicant's PIA, that the demolition of the theatre would result in substantial adverse change to the historic resource and that the CEQA exemption could not be used for the project.
Upon consideration of all of these evidence, staff determined that there is substantial evidence on the record that the project meets all of the requirements for a Class 32 infill exemption from the CEQA review.
Further, staff determined that the project would not result in a substantial adverse change to the UA Theatre historical resource because it proposes to retain the architectural design and details of the upper static façade, the character-defining feature that embodies the theatre's historical significance, and therefore the historic resource exception would not disqualify the project from the CEQA exemption.
In the second appeal point, the appellant argues that the categorical exemption is not consistent with the downtown area plan, including policies for protection and expansion of historic theatres that specifically reference the UA Theatre.
The city's downtown area plan is comprised of broad policies and goals that guide development in the downtown district.
It includes policies and goals that encourage the retention and expansion of cinema, along with live theatre and music venues, with the goal to strengthen the downtown as a prime regional destination for these types of art.
Specifically, the Economic Development Policy ED 1.7, Entertainment and Culture in the DAP, speaks to the goal of preserving cinema in the downtown.
A photograph of the UA Theatre's front façade is included in the figure in this policy, as a figure in this policy section, and the theatre is described as a building that helps to contribute to the special sense of place that distinguishes downtown from other destinations, along with the California theatre and music clubs and live theatre venues in the area.
The project complies with this policy by preserving as much of the existing theatre as is feasible, the front façade and the lobby area.
A structural review member, which was submitted by the applicant structural engineer to the LPC for its landmark review, concluded that substantial demolition of the theatre building would be required in order to bring it into compliance with current seismic and building code, and that preservation of the larger building would not be feasible.
Consequently, the ZAB found that the project is consistent with all applicable objective general plan and downtown area plan goals and policies.
As discussed in the ZAB's staff report, and the board approved the project accordingly.
In the third appeal point, the appellant asserts that the project description relied upon in the ZAB's review is not finite or stable, and is inadequate for consideration for the categorical exemption.
Per the applicant's recent public assertions, that the application would be substantially modified.
Staff determined that the CEQA exemption applies to the project that is represented in the plans, and that is described in the use permit that was approved by ZAB on December 12th, 2024.
Any substantial change to the project as approved would be required to undergo a use permit modification that is subject to a new staff review, including any review required pursuant to CEQA, and a decision by the ZAB on the modified project.
To date, no application to modify the approved project has been submitted to the city.
In the fourth appeal point, the appellant asserts that there was a potential due process violation in the ZAB proceedings, based on the representation in the applicant's letter to the ZAB, that the city approved the Class 32 categorical exemption in October of 2024, after deliberation by the City Council and consultation with the City Attorney, and there has been no public review before any City Council deliberation regarding the subject categorical exemption.
It is acceptable under CEQA, and is common practice for exemption determinations to be made at the staff level.
Staff reviewed the project in accordance with the regulations and timeframes set forth in AB 1633 that apply to projects which invoke the law to ensure that the City determines a project to be exempt from CEQA when it is eligible.
The City Council met in closed session on September 24th, 2024, to discuss potential litigation related to the project under CEQA as publicly noticed.
Sorry, one second.
Folks in the audience, please keep your comments to yourself, and everyone please make sure your phones are off and put on silent.
No public discussion regarding the CEQA determination is required by AB 1633 or the Housing Accountability Act, and the City is not obligated to disclose discussion conducted in closed session.
In the last appeal point, the appellant asserts that the ZAB was not provided with all relevant City reports from the architectural historians regarding the UA Theater.
The City Consultant's peer review of the historic resource reports and the revised PIA were publicly released concurrently with staff's CEQA determination letter on October 4th, 2024.
Staff had already made the CEQA exemption determination prior to the ZAB hearing on December 12th, 2024.
The reports that staff relied upon for the CEQA determination were not necessary for ZAB's deliberation on whether to approve or disapprove the project's use permit, and thus were not included in ZAB's hearing materials.
Nevertheless, all technical reports were publicly available well in advance of the ZAB hearing.
In conclusion, the project is exempt from CEQA under the infill exemption, and pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, the project is compliant with all applicable objective planning standards and cannot be denied, nor can the density be reduced unless findings of specific adverse impact to public health and safety can be made.
Finally, pursuant to State permit streamlining laws, tonight's meeting is the fourth out of five meetings that the City can conduct for a decision on the project.
And that concludes staff's presentation.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for the presentation.
We are going to move on to the presentation from the appellant before moving on to the presentation from the applicant.
Will the appellant please come forward? And then for the applicant, if you could just prepare anything that you're trying to move forward closer up to the front.
Thank you.
Please start when you're ready, and you might want to move the mic up higher.
Good evening, Mayor Ishii and members of the City Council.
I'm Tom Lippe.
I represent the appellant, Save the UA Berkeley.
So this appeal concerns the Class 32 categorical exemption from environmental review under CEQA that staff and the Zoning Adjustment Board granted for this project.
My presentation is about a provision in CEQA that prohibits the use of a categorical exemption where a project, quote, may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, unquote.
That's section 21084 subdivision E.
I'm going to use that number or that section number often.
There's a similar provision in the CEQA guidelines which staff referred to, and those are regulations issued by the Secretary of Resources, a lower level of government than the legislature, which CEQA was adopted by.
The historical resource exception is one of six exceptions that preclude the use of a categorical exemption.
Staff and the ZAB decided that the exception in the CEQA guidelines did not apply based on reports prepared by the applicant's consultant, Left Coast, which found that all parts of the building except the facade are no longer historically significant, and therefore demolishing almost all of the building except the facade would not cause a substantial adverse change in the historical significance of the building.
Staff retained its own consultant, RINCON Consulting, to peer review Left Coast's reports, and RINCON reached three important conclusions.
First, that Left Coast improperly segmented their analysis of the historic significance of the building and of whether the project may have a significant impact on it between the facade and the rest of the building.
And RINCON pointed out that under guidelines issued by the National Register of Historic Places, parts of buildings are not separately listed, so you cannot analyze impacts on the resource by dividing it up and excluding parts of it from the analysis as was done here.
This guidance is also the policy of the State Historic Preservation Office, as shown in a letter from that office that's attached to Exhibit 4 to my April 9th letter.
And I would encourage you to read that Exhibit 4 because it deals with a project very similar to this one, where a facade was retained and the rest of the building was proposed to be demolished, and the State Office said you can't get around CEQA with an exemption by doing it that way, because the entire building has to be analyzed as one.
So that wasn't done here.
It clearly violates State policy.
RINCON's second conclusion is that Left Coast improperly failed to consider the irreversible loss of any future opportunity to use the building as a theater as a significant impact, because the building's use as a theater is an important feature that conveys its historical significance.
And so RINCON's third conclusion is that when you correct these errors, you in fact have a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the building.
So for over 40 years, the CEQA case law has held that where CEQA uses the word may in connection with causing significant effects, the fair argument standard applies.
The standard applies to Section 21084E of CEQA because that section uses the word may in connection with causing significant effects.
The standard is environment friendly, because it requires resolving disagreements between experts in favor of conducting environmental review under CEQA.
And applying the standard here is straightforward, because RINCON's opinions are substantial evidence supporting a fair argument.
So this requires resolving the disagreement between RINCON and Left Coast in favor of not applying the exemption and conducting environmental review under CEQA.
The applicant contends that AB 1633 changed the legal standard for whether the guidelines exceptions preclude the use of a categorical exemption to a standard that favors development, the so-called substantial evidence standard.
This argument actually doesn't make any sense, because the new provision in AB 1633 only refers to the exemption exceptions in the CEQA guidelines.
It does not purport to refer to or address Section 21084E of CEQA.
So the applicant now has to engage in another argument, that in adopting AB 1633, the legislature engaged in something called implied repeal of Section 21084E.
But the courts will avoid finding implied repeal if two statutes can be harmonized using established rules that govern interpretation of statutes.
Here, the two statutes are easily harmonized, because Section 21084E is more specific than the new provision in AB 1633.
And the established rule governing the interpretation of statutes is that the more specific statute will prevail.
Therefore, Section 21084E precludes the use of a categorical exemption.
You can finish your sentence.
Yeah, I have one more sentence, really.
I just want to close by noting that what is missing by not preparing an EIR is the in-depth analysis of feasible mitigations or alternatives that might reduce impacts more than this project would.
Thank you.
Thank you.
OK.
So the applicant now will give a presentation for five minutes plus one sentence, since I allowed one sentence extra.
Feel free, if you want to wait till they're set up, that's fine, too.
All right.
Ready? Yep.
All right.
Good evening, Mayor Ishii and members of the City Council.
My name is Robin Baral.
I'm a partner at Hanson Bridget LLP and Laney's Council for the project.
Patrick Kennedy with Panoramic Interest is also here on behalf of the project sponsor.
And Isaiah Stackhouse with Trachtenberg, now SDT, is here as the applicant and project architect.
In responding to this appeal, first, I want to emphasize that I have responded to some of the key issues in a letter to the City Council that I've submitted to the City.
Second, I want to recognize the challenge that the City Council and the Berkeley community, pretty much everybody has.

Segment 2

As in keeping up with the evolving state housing laws in California, AB 1633 is a bill that was sponsored by the Bay Area Council in 2023 and took effect in January 1, 2024, by amending the Housing Accountability Act to change the way CEQA exemptions are processed for a small subset of high-density infill residential projects, such as this one.
In my role as a Housing Committee Chair in the Bay Area Council, I have had direct insight into the bill's framework and its legislative intent.
I can say with complete confidence that this project meets all the eligibility requirements of AB 1633.
The applicant's legal letter and his testimony goes into detail about the standard of review under CEQA.
These are the general rules that he's citing.
My letter responds to those claims also in great detail.
To summarize briefly, for this project, if the City were to use the fair argument standard in reviewing this project under CEQA, that approach could result in a HAA violation if it were to prevent the City from following the express statutory mandates of AB 1633.
There's three core provisions of AB 1633 that are worth mentioning here.
Now, for these projects, the HAA puts the burden on the project applicant to prove that an exemption applies.
The burden is on the applicant to prove that there are no exceptions, including the historical resources exception that would disqualify the use of an exemption.
After the applicant provides this information through a notice to the City, the City has 90 days, or up to 180 days, if more time is needed, to review the notice and confirm that it is supported by substantial evidence.
Third, a City is liable under the HAA if substantial evidence provided by the applicant is provided by the applicant, but the local agency does not determine that the project is exempt.
This framework is important.
It shifts how the burden of proof operates for this small subset of projects.
The applicant followed the statute and, as required, submitted an AB 1633 notice in March 2024.
The notice was based in part on findings from Left Coast Architectural History, the historian that prepared the historic resources evaluation, and project impact analysis.
The historian spent more than 6 months gathering records from every available archive, compiling those materials, comparing them to prior surveys, addressing inconsistencies in prior surveys, and ultimately preparing a detailed HRE, which was finalized in December 2023.
Equally important is that the historian for this project followed the specific process required by CEQA in analyzing potential impacts to historic resources, which notably includes an analysis of whether demolition would impact the features of the building that convey its historical significance.
The staff therefore made the correct decision when they found the project exempt under the Class 32 Info Exemption and found that the historical resources exemption does not apply.
Thank you for considering these points, and thank you to the Planning Department for its careful attention to the new requirements under the HAA that were implemented by AB 1633.
Thank you.
My name is Patrick Kennedy.
I have great sympathy with the movie lovers that are represented here tonight.
I, too, am a big fan of movies, and in fact, in February of this year, I attended the Dog Film Festival in San Francisco.
It's real.
It was the ninth annual one.
There are three points I'd like to make.
First off, when we took this project over in February of 2023, we offered the space to UA Theatres for $1 a year for as long as it took us to get the project approved, which would have been probably now it's entering its third year.
They declined.
They stayed for one month, and they closed it, and they said that the business was inadequate in Berkeley, even though they had seven screens in the theater.
They closed here, and they closed elsewhere.
I think they're still open in Emeryville.
A second point I'd like to make is the Facebook group does have incredible reach.
They're from Cork and Saudi Arabia, but we have the support of the local preservation group, Baha, and their president, Leila Mohn-Charch, testified in support of this project and the LPC.
One more sentence.
Finally, we are doing everything that the LPC asked us to do in this project, which includes restoring the facade, restoring the lobby, and incorporating the significant architectural details that remain in the building in the new structure.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Okay, so we are now opening for public comment, so I will ask if the applicant can maybe move these posters so that folks can speak.
So if you are interested in giving public comments, I'm going to ask that you get standing up on this wall to stand in line.
Take your time.
Walk slowly.
I don't want anyone to trip.
And so for those of you who have not been to council recently, I am a huge stickler for timing.
So you have one minute to give your public comments, and then you can finish your sentence if the buzzer beeps right as you're ending, and then I'm going to ask you to stop.
So thank you so much.
I really appreciate it.
I know we have a lot of public comment tonight.
We want to make sure we can hear from everyone, and I want to thank you all for coming here to share your opinions with us.
I'm going to start with the first public commenter, and also the other thing is I'm going to ask that folks please not speak, because it can be very disruptive.
We want to make sure we can hear everyone.
So thank you.
Go ahead.
Thank you everyone.
I think I know most of you.
I'm Kara Bins, and I'm speaking tonight in strong support of the proposed project at 2274 Shattuck.
This development aligns with Berkeley's commitment to building more housing downtown, near transit services and jobs, and reflects our broader vision for a more sustainable and inclusive city.
As we all know, we are in a housing crisis and projects like this are essential to meeting our goals under the downtown area plan and our regional housing needs allocation.
Last month, I personally toured the United Artists Theater site.
What I saw confirmed what preservation experts have already noted, very little of the historic theater remains.
What was once beautiful is now mostly concrete and decay.
Importantly, this project doesn't come at the cost of our city's artistic spirit, which I dearly love.
The near and my redevelopment of the California theater, it proposes to include a dedicated performance space, preserving a vital venue for artistic expression downtown.
Thank you.
Okay, next commenter.
My name is Connor Mitchell, and I am rising in opposition of this project.
I am a film director living in San Francisco, but I do consider Berkeley one of the great American cities.
For the last few years, I've been helping produce and direct a documentary on old art house movie theaters in the Bay Area.
Since the COVID pandemic, more than a thousand movie theater screens have gone dark across the country.
More importantly, since COVID, all three movie theaters in the downtown stretch of Berkeley have closed, including the Shattuck and the California.
On a technical level, I'm not sure of what the specifics on what the solution is going to be for this project.
However, I do know that over the last few years, theaters have become much more important and much more rare across communities.
And with the times that we are living in now, where free speech and right to assembly are being challenged nationwide, it is far more important now that buildings like the UA, Berkeley are not only preserved for the connection to our past, but also to help forward the generations of the future.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next person can come up.
Good evening, council.
My name is Jake price and I'm speaking in support of the project and against the appeal.
I grew up in Berkeley.
I grew up going to the theater.
It's a lovely theater, but times are a changing and it's no longer a viable business and we need housing, especially downtown when I was at Berkeley high over a decade ago now, all the businesses on Shattuck were vibrant and, and vibrant, but now they're not as vibrant as they used to be, and that's why I'm speaking in support of the project and against the appeal.
Serving high schoolers and college students, and now I see vacancies throughout the street.
We need more foot traffic.
We need more dense urban infill development and this project exemplifies that perfectly.
And I ask that we move it forward today.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I get it and understand where the passion here comes from.
Who isn't for artistry and unity? Who would not love a bold and exciting vision of a once glorious art deco movie theater restored as if straight out of the same Hollywood that birthed this building's creation.
It's an alluring story to fantasize about sticking it to the big, bad developers and showing how the common folk can win, but it appears that it lacks any grounding in the reality of construction costs, or what credible business plan would justify such an investment.
So, what will it be City Council? Is this a popularity contest or have you been elected to make thoughtful and informed decisions about our city's future? Saving the UA would provide for us a damaged and faded star, an empty shell with only an implausible screenplay and no producer to make it anything more than a good story.
Thank you.
Hi there.
Good evening.
My name's Alan Chamorro and I'm in support of the project.
I think the most important thing I can say here is that the rules have been followed and it's important that we redevelop buildings like this with better use.
I think it's admirable that the historic facade is maintained.
I think that's going to be a beautiful remembrance, but we need housing and this is a good project, so I hope you'll support it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
My name is Sean Carsang.
I'm speaking in support of the project.
The housing affordability crisis that California and the rest of America faces is probably my generation's greatest conflict.
I think we need to do everything in our power to fight against this and build whenever we can, and it's probably my greatest reservation about staying within the state, having affordable housing, and we have 45 units that are up for taking, so people who need it can have it.
I walked inside of the movie theater when they were doing the tour.
I wouldn't pay to watch a movie in there.
That place is run down and it's millions upon millions of dollars in remodeling costs, and there's no plan that's been outlined to say, well, how is this going to be done? Who's going to pay for it? But the builders are right here right now, ready to put up apartment complex.
We should let them do it.
So let's build Berkeley.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Moni Law.
I rise to speak in favor of housing downtown, economic vitality, and this historic landmark, United Arts Theater.
As a filmmaker mom, an actor mom, I've enjoyed movies at this very theater, and I'm convinced that the cultural event of movie theaters is not dead.
$60 million was made by Ryan Coogler this last weekend in an opening at Grand Lake Theater.
CEQA state law still applies and is not nullified by SB 330 or AB 1633.
The UA Theater operated continuously for 91 years, and I pray that it will do so in the next 90 years.
A facade does not a landmark make.
It's the building itself, and we could do both housing and a theater.
I say in the famous Star Wars quote, may the force be with you, counsel, to make the right decision in favor of retaining this cultural gem.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Therese Poletti.
I am the preservation director of the Art Deco Society of California, which is based in Berkeley, and I'm also a Berkeley resident.
I would like to urge the city council to please consider that this building is not – does not qualify for an exemption to CEQA.
It is a major historic resource.
It is an Art Deco treasure, and Berkeley is going to be tearing down the equivalent of the Paramount Theater in Oakland should the demolition happen.
So please really reconsider what could happen if this turns into either a hole in the ground with nothing or if this theater is gone with just a facade.
We have a major, major treasure here in Berkeley that should not be demolished because once it's gone, it's going to be gone forever.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Heather Ripley, and I'd like to cede my time to Laura Linden.
Sure.
Oh, okay.
So you have two minutes, and you might want to move the mic down.
Oh, no, I'm not Laura.
I am also ceding my time to Laura.
Why don't you all come up since you're ceding time to her? It would be easier.
Just so I'm clear, who's ceding time? Okay, so the three of you are ceding time.
Who is – one, two, three.
Okay, great.
Come on up, please.
You can separate it however you'd like.
Yeah, so will it start, and then I can look? Or is that what this is? Yeah.
Okay, so there's a clock here, and then there's one here, too, that you can check.
Thank you.
Okay, go ahead.
Okay.
Why don't the line – why don't you move up a bit, too? All right.
So, hi, I'm Laura Linden.
I'm co-leader of the group Save the UA Berkeley.
We've been going strong for two years.
We have nothing to do with Saudi Arabia.
Look at all the people here.
Come on.
Thousands – hundreds, if not thousands of people have written you guys letters over the past year.
You know, a lot of people in Berkeley, the wider East Bay, this is a very legitimate issue with a very legitimate legal and also a wider policy argument.
That's why we're here to talk to you guys about it.
That's why we tried to meet with you guys because, you know, we really feel like some bad faith things have been said by the developer about us and about our arguments and that – and so on and so forth.
Anyway – You might want to speak into the mic because – Yes, okay, so – Otherwise, people online – This is being held up here.
If you could turn it around a little bit.
Because, you know, to say that there's nothing historic in the interior other than, let's say, the lobby or, let's say, the facade is ridiculous.
Even as a multiplex, this thing is chock full of art deco, decor, and ornamentation, okay? All throughout, even as a multiplex, in the auditoriums, in the hallways, the mezzanine, the grand staircase that's on the level of Radio City Music Hall.
Those are the angels that are behind the partitions because the original auditorium exists behind the partitions.
And sure, there is damage behind there, but it is incredible that this auditorium exists.
It was preserved in the 70s for this very reason, for the ability to possibly bring it back.
So, this theater has a lot of options.
So, please look at all of the photos and do not dismiss what is in the interior of this theater.
And as our attorney has talked about, this theater, the nut of it is that it is on the State Historic Registry, which is a listing that protects the entire building.
So, very quickly, I want to just call out what has been, unfortunately, and again, we respect the City Council.
We really are counting on you to give us a fair hearing and also to be independent and problem solvers.
But really, we've had a lot of trouble getting information.
This CEQA exemption was so pivotal to the project's approval.
We feared that this deliberation would all be done in secret, and then it would be granted, and then it would be over.
And that's pretty much what happened.
In February of last year, CEQA was outlined in January, and then actually in March, I spoke with Sharon Gong for 20 minutes, took notes.
She did not mention that the developer had actually, two weeks before, in a 300-page document, demanded a full exemption to CEQA.
I spoke to her.
I asked her about any possible exemptions.
She did not answer.
She didn't say she said nothing like that happened.
We only found out in May that that had happened.
And then we began sending letters to you guys and sending letters to the whole city.
Please seek peer review.
Get other input, please.
We heard nothing.
It was pretty much just we heard nothing all spring, all summer.
But what we did hear was that the housing project proposal was on hold, on hold, on hold.
And then only in May did we find out that there was this demand.
And then nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.
And then on October 4th, then suddenly, you know, the exemption is granted.
And then, oh, what do you know, that same day, finally those documents are popped into that little portal that most people don't know how to get to.
But I did eventually find it.
Okay.
So we didn't, you know, we have been trying to get information to the public, and we didn't get it.
So was that four minutes? Yep, that's four minutes.
Thank you for your comments.
All right.
Could you allow the next speaker to come up, please? Thank you.
I'm sorry.
This is a public comment.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Look at it.
Someone tried to murder me.
And nobody cares.
I know two days ago at Cedar rose park, a man tried to strangle me to death.
I was there because.
I'm so sorry.
I'm currently homeless.
Why am I homeless? I am homeless.
I'm sorry.
I'm so sorry.
I don't know.
We have not responded to that.
We are not responding to that on a specific issue.
Because it's a murder around.
He wants to wring your neck.
I hear you.
And I like to refer this to city manager and see if we can have someone.
Take this woman's report.
Thank you.
Shall I start? Yes.
Thank you.
I'm Ricky.
I was born and raised in Berkeley.
And have many memories of going to see movies there.
I represent my homies from Berkeley who went with their friends and families to see their first films at the UA theater.
They want their grandchildren to be able to have the same opportunity.
There are also groups of local actors and artists who are without a venue to perform.
Downtown Berkeley was the hub and this theater was the place to go.
The beauty of this theater is its location and accessibility.
By BART, walking, and by bus.
You see Berkeley students from all over the world become acquainted with American culture at this theater.
Films importantly depict and instruct us about the past, present, and future.
Let us not deny the general.
One more sentence.
Sorry.
That's the end of your time.
Okay.
Sorry.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Unless you could find someone to give you a minute if you'd like.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Feel free to move the mic.
Yeah.
So I don't pull out my back.
Hi, my name is Gregory Sharpen.
I am the co-producer and co-host of KALX Film Close-Ups.
I'm also a local film editor of documentaries.
And I think it's notable that Patrick Kennedy had to go to San Francisco to see the Dog Film Festival since there are now no longer any theaters in downtown Berkeley.
Including the Fine Arts Cinema, which was in a space where a Patrick Kennedy building now exists.
And he had guaranteed, said that he would put the movie theater back in.
And the Fine Arts Cinema now no longer exists.
Also, the fact that there is a gaping hole where the Shattuck Cinemas used to be, and the fact that there are empty storefronts is because all the businesses were moved out to make way for a housing development, which is now on hold and is not happening.
All the places up and down center have been moved out for a housing project that is now on hold.
And I would like to give the political will for the groundswell behind me to oppose the project at the United Artists.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
My name is Jeff Baker.
I'd like to yield my minute to David.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Just move close, yeah.
When I was a kid in the 80s, I would see movies at the UA, and it never, ever occurred to me that this building was remarkable in any way.
It had long since been carved up into a multiplex, and even back in the 80s, it no longer made economic sense to have that style of movie palace in downtown Berkeley.
200-plus apartments seems like a much better use of this space than a movie theater in an era when nobody goes to movie theaters anymore.
I'm not saying that this appeal is in bad faith, but I think it's worth noting that nobody was interested in landmarking this property 50 years ago or 40 years ago or 30 years ago or 20 years ago or 10 years ago or 5 years ago or 3 years ago.
I think you see my point.
Now somebody wants to build apartments here, and suddenly everybody wants to landmark this magnificent example of Berkeley's cultural patrimony that they hadn't managed to notice for 50 years.
It makes me a little bit cynical.
And if it seems like I'm being mean, that is not my intent.
But I would like us to be clear that this is an issue of values.
I am asking the council and the city to value our current and future generations.
UC students are living in their cars because of our housing crisis.
Rather than indulge this nostalgia and sentimentality, places for people to live are simply far more important for the Berkeley that exists today than preserving a mid-20th century movie house.
It is time to prioritize the future of Berkeley rather than its past.
Thank you.
Thank you.
These two people are going to cede their time to me.
Which two people? Jemai, Ellis, and Ann Weinberger.
Okay.
Are those you? Can you just? Can you just wave your hand so I know who you're? Thank you.
Okay.
And then I'm going to ask that you sit down unless you've got something to hold up.
And I think Gary over there.
Gary, are you also giving your minute? Yes.
Okay.
If you are, can I ask that you step out of the line, please, so that we're clear? Thank you.
I just want to say quickly before I speak that the reason it wasn't.
This will be part of your time.
Yes, I understand.
The reason it wasn't landmark 50 years ago is because if they landmarked it, they couldn't put in the multiplex or alter it.
And as the owner of a movie theater, landmarking it wouldn't serve their purposes at the time.
So dear mayor and city council, this document, which is a part of the appeal referenced above, will focus on the fact that the housing development proposed for 2274 Shattuck Avenue is out of compliance with the city's downtown area plan.
DAP.
And that's the general plan and is therefore not eligible for the class 32 exemption that staff granted to the project.
The exemption should be reversed.
And the proposal set that sent back to staff to undergo the secret review process that was outlined by the city in January, 2024 the city's vague claim that.
There are now competing interests affecting downtown planning in no way excuses or makes legal.
Let it, I'm sorry, makes legal letting a developer demolish the massive and historic UI structure, which is now a local landmark on the California register of historical resources and are eligible.
According to California code regulations, title 1415332 and infill development development project must be consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies, as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, but the project, because it calls for destroying the palatial four-story UA structure only to retain part of the facade and perhaps part of the lobby.
It is our understanding that the developer is not legally bound to retain the lobby does not follow the DAP, the Berkeley downtown area plan adopted in 2012.
And part of the general plan was the product of up to 200 meetings in many years of work as a democratic document of citizen input.
That was approved by two thirds of Berkeley voters in 2010, and it must be followed even with the raft of state pro housing laws that have been adopted since 2017, the general plan and the DAP are still in effect and govern planning in the city.
What on the city's DAP webpage, it States these top goals, making downtown a recognized center for culture and arts, bringing new housing to downtown and preserving downtown's historic assets.
The whole DAP document outlines the policies and goals to promote historic preservation and support the downtown cinemas.
And I just want to say, this is not an argument about whether it should be housing or this old arcade theater.
This is about following the law.
That's what our appeal is about.
It's not about whether it's worthy or not.
It is our feeling the law to not exempt this theater from the sequence of violations.
And that's what we're here to do.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Next speaker.
Okay, folks, just move up.
It's okay.
Don't be shy.
Hello.
My name is Anya Fuchs.
Can I give 30 seconds of my time to dance? Go for it.
Okay.
30 seconds.
I grew up with 30 seconds on our clock or we'll just keep track of it.
Okay.
Go ahead.
I'll just, I'll just stop you at 30 seconds.
Go ahead.
Um, I've lived in Atlanta for 18 years ago.
I've brought my friends from out of town.
They're completely impressed.
There's nothing like the U a theater.
Um, in other cities, it's a source of pride it what's makes Berkeley unique.
I just from an outside point of view, I don't understand the many storefronts open that are just vacant in.

Segment 3

Yes, housing, absolutely important, but I don't see a conflict here.
This is one of these pearl gems that make unique, that make Berkeley so special, and..
Sorry, you're..
Yeah, thank you.
If you want to continue giving that.
That was on me.
Mayor, Council, for the last 10 years I've been fighting for affordable housing in the South Bay.
Last year's efforts led to the approval for a thousand housing units.
In Santa Clara, I'm a YIMBY.
Up here, I'm a NIMBY.
This is what happens when the political pendulum swings left and right.
Whenever it hits the amplitude, mistakes, serious mistakes are made.
We're trying to prevent you from making one here tonight.
The California Register of Historic Resources and two separate City Commission peer reviews are saying that the building has incredible historic merit.
Left Coast architects and the developer are saying there's nothing worth saving.
No one in this room, except one person sitting right there, has opened the patch of Theater A and looked up at that Art Deco splendor in the auditorium.
It is incredible and it's intact.
These buildings are not endangered.
They're beyond endangered.
If you tear down the UA, it's extinct.
It's over.
We are not here tonight to ask you to vote to save the theater.
We are here tonight to ask you to make sure that you follow the law.
A building like the UA is a rare prime example of when the implementation of CEQA is appropriate.
Once it's gone, it's gone forever.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Arlene Oseichik, Berkeley resident.
I'm ceding my time to Alan Michon.
Okay.
Okay, two people are ceding three.
Okay.
Three people are ceding their time to you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
My name is Alan Michon and I'm the owner and operator of the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland.
I have a long time history in Berkeley.
In 1972, I built, opened, and operated for many years the Rialto Cinemas on Gilman Street.
Later on, I operated the Sunset Theater on Telegraph Avenue.
Subsequently, the Fine Arts on Shattuck.
I built the Shattuck Cinemas.
I have also at times operated the Northside Theater as well as the Oaks Theater on Solano Avenue.
Berkeley has a long history with entertainment.
The downtown plan calls for entertainment.
One of the exhibits that staff put up earlier in the day was fraudulent.
It was an aerial site visit, site plan of what we are talking about.
It showed the UA building, but to the right it also showed the Shattuck Cinemas building that is no longer there.
It is a gaping hole in the downtown and the developer has not been able to move forward with that.
It broke my heart to see the Shattuck closed.
I want to explain that Regal Cinemas closed this theater.
They were in deep financial trouble because of COVID.
We were all forced as operators of public places to close our places of business for a year and a quarter.
After that, the public was afraid to come back.
The Grand Lake would not have survived had it not been for a government program called the SVOG, Shuttered Venues Operators Grant.
I received a substantial amount of money from the federal government to take us through that period.
Regal did not.
Big companies were exempted from that government help.
Small operators like myself were allowed and given the ability to stay in business.
Some people tonight have said, oh, people don't go to the movies anymore.
It's not a viable business.
I invite any member of this council and city staff to accompany me over to the Grand Lake after this meeting is over.
And you can count eight or 900 people watching my movies in the Grand Lake by the time the 730 show starts.
It is still a viable business.
It is still recovering from COVID.
And most importantly, please don't look at this building as a movie theater coming back, as a multiplex coming back.
It was a terrible multiplex.
It was a prime example of bad multiplexing of a beautiful old theater.
But at the time that work was done, the city council, the city planners had the foresight to say to the owner of the property, okay, we'll let you multiplex this theater, but all the original elements have to be retained.
You build your new auditoriums inside the shell of the old theater.
You leave the ceiling alone.
You leave the proscenium alone.
You create something that could be brought back.
And I urge you not to look at this theater now as a movie theater for the downtown, but as a future performing arts center for the whole region.
It is a fabulous theater with a fabulous stage, a full fly loft right on BART, 15 feet away from the front door.
This can be the pride of Berkeley, just as the Paramount is the pride of Oakland.
And it can serve the citizens of this town and surrounding communities for another hundred years.
There's nothing structurally wrong with that building.
It's a fortress that's built just like my Grand Lake.
And I'd love to see it restored and preserved.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Please come next speaker.
Okay.
All right, folks, we want to make sure.
Folks, come on.
We want to let this next speaker speak.
Please go ahead.
I'm Ellen Roden and I'll cede my time to John.
Okay.
I love the joy.
All right.
I just want to make sure we can hear from everyone.
Good evening, mayor and council.
My name is Greg King.
I have operated theaters for 30 years in a past life and been involved in many restorations.
I urge you to support to appeal the Zab decision and give the United Artists Theater the proper and lawful assessment it deserves.
It is a prime and irreplaceable example of art deco.
It retains most of its original fixtures and decoration.
The public lobby and lounge areas you now see are impressive, but the mind-blowing part is the auditorium ceiling, the organ grills, and the proscenium, all existing behind the sheet rock multiplex walls.
I am one of the few people in this room who have seen this personally.
The UA is steeped in history and has entertained multiple generations of East Bay residents for 90 years.
The robust steel and concrete frame and restored interior can be a relevant part of a future downtown.
Whether as an 1800 seat live venue or continuing as a multiplex, the theater has generations of life in it left to give.
I implore you to do the right thing.
This building is on the California Historical Resource List and is eligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places.
It deserves to have a full CEQA evaluation.
Exempting it from CEQA is against the law.
Please understand that once demolition is started, it is not reversible.
The United Artists is too important to be ground to dust and end up in a landfill.
Please give this treasure the time to properly be evaluated and assessed.
Do not let this building disappear in a cloud of dust and become a crater like the Shattuck Cinemas.
I would suggest to make sure all funding is in place for the new build before any demolition permit is issued.
And to have a requirement to fully photograph and document this magnificent Art Deco jewel before its final act.
Thank you and good evening.
Thanks for listening.
Thank you.
Madam Mayor, Council Members, thank you for letting me speak.
I'm Kirsten Schultz.
Berkeley is my hometown and I'm a resident.
I've never been to Riyadh, fair city that it may be.
Berkeley's downtown and its movie cinemas were for us like a piazza.
Or as a friend who comes home to visit his parents said, no, not a piazza, a passeggiata.
Because we all came down and walked around town.
And I think that's what we have to keep in mind when we look to future generations.
Young people are going to want to be among people together in the real world.
And some of our downtown venues are spectacular, but I don't have $175 to go to the theater and young people don't either.
We need to preserve our spaces.
If we don't preserve our big public spaces, what are we going to do 10 years from now when we need them to preserve us for climate incidents? We all remember the orange summers.
Where did you go to breathe? Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
I'm Brandon Broad.
I'm a Berkeley resident, UC Berkeley alumni.
I've been in Berkeley since 1990.
And I would ask that you do the review.
I think 23 affordable units on this nice shiny tower on the schematics is not really a good number of affordable units.
Park Theater is now lighting up their old theater in Lafayette.
I think we need some pride and vision for Berkeley downtown as some of these people have addressed the filmmaker here.
Imagine a Berkeley International Film Festival.
How much money would that bring in to downtown San Francisco? The Castro Theater was saved.
They rebuilt it.
They made a live venue.
We have the Presidio Theater.
As I said, Lafayette.
Orinda Theater.
I got to go to Orinda now to go to some of these live events because we don't have one in Berkeley that's a similar theater.
There's film festivals, Mill Valley, etc.
The Presidio Theater.
Private foundations are helping Lafayette.
They've raised $2 million.
Thank you.
Please do the review.
Hi, my name is Christine Uren.
I'm a longtime Berkeley resident.
I think in a dispute like this, we have people of good faith on both sides.
It always helps to get more information.
And under the law, there really seems to be a lot of support to do this inspection and figure out, is the theater really seismically safe? Does it really have all these beautiful art deco ornaments? I know what I've seen going there.
I've seen the staircase.
I've seen the carved medallions.
I've seen the ceiling murals that the new development doesn't seem to retain.
The marquee doesn't seem to be perfectly retained in that new development.
Quite a bit of it is going to be sheared off.
I would like you to really look at what we have and consider everyone here who we all want to build housing, but we've been losing a lot of things in Berkeley.
And everyone has something they love.
They'd like to retain.
I think you need to look into what we really have.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Sarah Bell and I'm here to speak in favor of the project and against the appeal.
There are legal merits, which I believe favor the housing project, but there's also the reality on the ground.
If you sit in the theater, you'll see for yourself.
It's not the Grand Lake Theater.
It's a shabby multiplex.
Pull back the metaphorical and literal curtains and you'll see crumbling concrete.
The building is literally unsafe for those inside it and for structures around it.
To finance saving the facade and lobby, the last original parts remaining, we need to find a new use for the site.
Thankfully, well, not thankfully, Berkeley desperately needs housing and the housing developer proposing this project plans to preserve the facade and lobby.
This project is the best choice, both for historic preservation and our housing crisis.
Let's build homes for theater goers to come.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, folks.
Good evening and thank you for your attention.
My name is Summer Brenner, and I just want to put a plug in for all the theaters that used to be here.
And also the very logical reasoning, historical reasoning that we heard about COVID being so devastating for our public places.
Now, there's an opportunity to preserve the public places above and beyond what was lost and irrevocably lost.
And let me just say something about housing.
We all want housing.
I think it's very disingenuous to think that students are going to be moving into the Kennedy Tower there.
That's just very unrealistic.
And we're going to have a meeting next week about middle housing.
And that's going to hopefully address the affordability crisis because the housing crisis is driven by the affordability crisis.
Just one more thing is aesthetics.
Sorry, your time is up.
One more word.
Aesthetics.
Okay, thank you.
Hi, Karen Westmont.
I live on Rose Street.
I offer one bit of information that you would find if we did a CEQA, and that is that the United Artists themselves were significant.
They were part of a labor movement.
In its essence, they fought the studios.
They formed the reason Charlie Chapman came and Mary Pickford came is because this was their effort to free themselves from the control of the studios.
So there is more to be found about what this resource is.
On the point about housing, I used to do the regional housing needs determination for the state of California.
I did those determinations for 71% of the state's counties, not the Bay Area.
Berkeley was never supportive of the housing numbers it was assigned.
And so now that you've got an opportunity, I want to suggest something else you should do instead.
Housing units built in the city of San Jose recently in the thousands only increased households.
You can finish your sentence.
Thank you.
Only increased households by 400 or 500.
The thousands of units didn't go for residents.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Kavya Chaturvedi, and I'm a student at UC Berkeley.
I've listened to people here speak tonight with such deep love and passion for the theater, and I respect that.
And it's clear that this place meant something because Berkeley afforded people the opportunity to live here long enough to build these memories.
And I want that same chance, but so many of my friends can't afford to stay here.
They're living in cars, overcrowded apartments, and commuting hours just to be here.
This project creates 227 new homes, including 23 deeply affordable homes, and it preserves the shattered facade and restores historic lobby.
It brings a new life to a building that's now empty and unsafe.
Even when it was offered at a dollar a year, the theater couldn't survive.
The city, the city attorney, and over 10 independent experts have all agreed that this project qualifies for a CEQA exemption.
I think it's really time to move forward, and I think the city should approve this project so students like me can continue to build a future here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Folks, hey, folks, you know what? When you all were giving your comments, people were respectful and allowed you to speak.
I'd like you to do the same for them.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Good evening, council members.
My name is Theo Gordon, and I'm here to ask you to reject the appeal and approve the housing.
But I also actually don't want you to listen to me.
I don't want you to listen to anyone else in this room.
We are not normal.
Normal people don't spend their Tuesday nights waiting for hours to give 60 seconds of comment.
We don't represent Berkeley.
That's your job and our other electorate representatives as well.
And the people of Berkeley have said time and time again they want more housing.
They rejected two former members of this body who constantly found reasons to oppose housing and instead elected a mayor who campaigned specifically on ending the housing crisis.
And just today, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks in Sacramento was working to try and pass her bill, AB609, which would exempt even more infill projects from CEQA because she knows that frivolous appeals like this one do not protect the environment.
And projects in dense infill housing should not be held up by 40 people with $5,000 for a lawyer and a lot of time on their hands.
Assemblymember Wicks has made a career of championing housing, and voters responded by reelecting her with 70% of the vote.
You can finish your sentence.
Please build more housing.
That's what we want.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Dear Mayor and Council, it's not mixed use if the ground floor retail remains vacant.
We have a lot of blight in downtown Berkeley right now.
And it's not a vibrant downtown without a movie house.
We have not bounced back from the terrible isolation of the COVID shutdowns as a city or as a culture.
It is in the interest of the city to nourish these third places, neither home nor work, where community happens.
Libraries are great, but they close at night.
The UA Theater restored could be a civic jewel.
30 years ago, there were 20 or so movie screens in downtown Berkeley, and now there are none.
Thank you for standing up for the rule of law.
Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor and Council.
My name is Bill Schrader.
I purposely waited to go close to last so I don't have to repeat what's already been said by many others.
One of the things I would like to say is I appreciate the passion by all the folks here tonight who want to save this facility.
However, sometimes it's really better to kind of step back away from the bark and look at the trees and the forest.
One thing that's not been discussed that I want to bring up is even if this group was able to find a benefactor, I don't know, Bill Gates or somebody else, to tear this building down because it's not structurally sound and build a new theater, i.e., similar to the Fox or the Paramount, what would that do to the freight who's struggling, the UC theater struggling? Don't know what impact it would have on the Greek, but I don't think this is a good use of this particular property.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, folks, I know there's a lot of folks standing kind of near the wall, so I just want to make sure are you coming to speak? No? Okay.
Go ahead.
My name is Horace Gray.
My grandfather went to UC Berkeley in 38.
I went to Berkeley High, class of 84.
I can't afford to live in Berkeley.
I got to live on 62nd and Bancroft, but the theater should stay.
There's no way on God's green earth with my $100,000 a year salary I'm going to be able to afford to live in that tower.
I can't move to Berkeley and live in that tower.
What you need downtown is a reason to come downtown, and there is no reason to come downtown.
There's a two-bit punk rock club that everybody bent over backwards to get to happen.
The Castro Theater got the carte blanche treatment getting rebuilt over in the city recently.
You know, you can't fill the schools in San Francisco.
Housing is not a problem.
Housing is not really a problem.
It's the price of rents in the East Bay that are the problem.
Save the UC Theater.
Do what they did at the Fox.
Make it happen.
The Fox Theater single-handedly revitalized downtown Oakland, period.
Thank you.
Our final in-person commenter, I believe.
Good evening.
My name is Zayden Lipman.
I'm speaking in opposition.
I do not understand this plan that seems to basically remove a lot of the existing culture, however long it's been there in downtown already, to replace with homes that are not affordable.
There is a small portion that might go to a few people, while the rest is just increasingly beyond anything already in existence.
And there is higher and higher buildings all coming in at the same time.
Blocks have been shut down for buildings that don't have funding to come into place.
What is there? Nothing now.
You're wanting to build a concentrated downtown for people to enjoy by only building homes for people to come into and then go elsewhere.
We need more of what's already around, revitalized, and what has been come into place as new housing is not operating in mixed use or being lived in.
They're above the average price.
Thank you.
Any other in-person comments? If not, we're going to move online.
Okay.
We currently have 11 hands raised on Zoom, 12, 13.
If you're interested in providing public comment, please use the raise hand function on the Zoom, and we will begin calling on speakers.
First is Gail Simpson.
I yield my time to Madeline Roberts.
Okay.
Madeline Roberts is the next speaker, and Madeline will have two minutes.
Hi there.
Berkeley High School, class of 2012.
I'm also a former home builder.
I recognize that home builders in California are trying to do the Lord's work as our policymakers.
However, let me just tell you this, EMBs.
I am typically one of you, but in this case, there are hundreds of sites included in the Berkeley housing element, which was a Herculean effort by the city to pave way for housing development sites, and that was an enormous process.
The 2274 Shattuck is conspicuously not one of them.
Therefore, the downtown area plan, which was the culmination of hundreds of public meetings, and I believe seven years, and an enormously democratic process that many retailers bought or rented their spaces accordingly with, still stands, and many of those policies are still objective.
I'll add that Cineworld, the operator that was formerly in the U.A.
theaters, is a U.K.-based company and was going through global restructuring at the time it pulled out.
So I don't believe that comment was in good faith.
I'll add that Cineworld, the operator that was formerly in the U.A.
theaters, is a U.K.-based company and was going through global restructuring at the time it pulled out.
So I don't believe that comment was in good faith.
Next, I'll say this.
Mill Valley, the Marina District, Hayes Valley, the Mission District, Lafayette even, as of late, the Elmwood, Uptown Oakland, these are all neighborhoods you want to be in, you want to work in, you want to fall in love in.
You want to meet your friends in.
These are senses of place.
These are what are called the third places.
They have fought like hell to preserve their movie theaters.
I have a brother-in-law from Australia.
He's only ever been to Berkeley once.
It was pre-COVID, and he remembers it fondly because he went to an animation film festival in downtown Berkeley.
He remembers that vividly.
I am not an historical preservationist.
Rather, I care about providing accessible and equitable third places in downtown Berkeley.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Next is Kate Bolton Schmuckler.
Hi, there.
So, I just wanted to support the theater being looked over carefully by following the law.
I want to support the folks that want the theater to stay.
Once it's gone, it's gone.
I can't afford Berkeley, either.
I live in El Cerrito.
I hardly go to downtown Berkeley anymore.
I'm getting born and raised in the Bay.
Just because there's not much to go to, I can't afford live stuff a lot.
But theaters, you know, movies are something a lot more affordable.
I think it's a good thing.
I don't think it's either or.
It's not housing or theater.
Let's get creative and think maybe we can have both.
So, once this Art Deco icon is gone, it's gone.
It's gone.
It's gone.
It's gone.
It's gone.
It's gone.
It's gone.
Let's get creative and think maybe we can have both.
So, once this Art Deco icon is gone, there's no way in hell anyone's going to rebuild it to this beautiful glory that it is.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Next is Harvey Smith.
Harvey should be able to unmute.
I'm sorry.
I just want to point out a broader perspective here.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, the country's leading preservation organization, has recently featured the preservation of a number of historic theaters across the country.
Let me quote Carol Quinlan, the president and CEO, who underscored, quote, the indisputable truth that historic preservation doesn't stifle progress, it fuels it.
By reinvesting in historic places, we unlock their potential to foster economic development, sustain local character, and enhance people's lives in both immediate and lasting ways.
So, the question that I want to bring to you, the one that I ask, is Berkeley has been on the forefront of so many important issues.
Why is Berkeley now so far behind with this on the issue of preservation? Thank you.
Thank you.
Sorry, can I? Next is Alana Auerb.
Can I just check in really quick? How many comments do we have left? Still 13.
Alana Auerbach.
Okay, because I do want to give council a chance to take a stretch break if there are a lot more comments left.
Are folks feeling like they need a quick stretch break? You're okay.
12 more.
12? Yes.
All right.
So, I think we should take a break, though, after the 12, because that is a really long time for us to be sitting.
So, okay.
Go ahead.
Good evening, everyone.
With so many of the downtown construction projects stalled by the developers to a date uncertain, imagine if you don't require the CEQA, if you don't follow the law, and this project goes the way of so many others.
You'll feel horrible.
It won't be a good feeling for anybody.
So, just abide by the law, because not only is it the law, but it'd be so refreshing in our current political climate.
And then, in the meantime, we can partner with this vast, potentially 100,000-people-strong community that's impassioned to create this theater, to have a community space.
This is what we need.
And we can do this.
The city councils in Oakland and Richmond, and then the previous speaker just named so many others, have done that, have partnered with the community.

Segment 4

And Preserved Theaters in Their Cities, We Can Do This.
Please require the CEQA.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Lillian King.
Hi, yes, this is David McFadden-Elliott on my wife's computer.
I'm a writer and Berkeley resident of 16 years.
You know, I used to take pride in telling my friends I lived within walking distance of four movie theaters.
Now I lament the destruction and drosscape, not just a city pockmarked by abandoned storefronts, but scarred by entire rows of blight.
Are movies dead? Consider.
In summer 23, CNN crowed that Barbenheimer's box office success has reawakened America's movie-going muscle.
Last Thanksgiving, the Hollywood Reporter boasted domestic revenue for the five-day weekend soared to an all-time high.
And just this past weekend, the latest Barben-esque double feature scored another blockbuster holiday haul.
That foot traffic and energy can return to downtown Berkeley.
See the sellout lines at Banff's single screen.
See the thriving corner of College and Ashby anchored by the Elmwood Theater.
See the families flocking to Berkeley's movies in the park each summer.
I enthusiastically voted for the Manhattanization of Berkeley, but I took for granted that the vision called for bustling streets, thriving restaurants, and movie theaters.
You know, like Manhattan.
The Manhattanization has stalled.
Do the right thing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comments.
Um..
-♪♪ Next is Chance Beretsky.
Beretsky.
Certainly.
Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor Ishii, members of the City Council.
My name is Chance Beretsky.
I'm here speaking on behalf of East Bay for Everyone.
It's interesting that some of the appellants here are talking as though the Council has the discretion to conduct a full CEQA review or not.
That's really not the question here before us tonight.
The question is whether or not ZAB was acting in accordance with the law and with AB 1633 when they granted a categorical exemption.
I think the evidence is massively substantial that they were.
And past that, nothing here really matters.
This is a question about whose side the law is on and whether ZAB acted correctly.
Now, getting into those extra-legal concerns, the only way to maintain attractive amenities in downtown Berkeley is to have people that live near them.
And what cuts me up about this is that if the appellants had taken all this money they raised and donated it to the new Parkway in Oakland, for example, that could have done some real good for independent theater.
This will not.
Thank you.
Okay, next we have Andrew Talbot.
Hi, yes, I'm glad for the opportunity to be able to talk about this.
I want to second the person who said that you shouldn't listen to us, the people that are willing and able to show up or talk on Zoom on this sort of thing are not representative of Berkeley.
You were elected to make decisions for Berkeley and also you're responsible for the law.
And hopefully you do not reject this housing and have to get sued again because you were for rejecting housing.
So please, once again, follow the law and approve this housing.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thanks.
Next is Kelly Hammergren.
Okay.
I wish we still had film in Berkeley.
Are you getting an echo? Because I am.
No, no echo here.
Okay.
I wish we still had film in Berkeley, but if you should approve this project, please apply to this project the lapse permit ordinance.
It is written as one year and so far it's rarely enforced, but council has previously made a section exception and applied two years to the lapse permit.
I think I don't want any more dead zones and holes with stalled project in our city.
And so I ask that you would apply a two-year lapse permit.
If they're not initiating construction, the entitlement goes away.
So that's my comment.
I can't see the clock.
Thanks, Kelly.
You finished right on time.
We have Zandra Castleton.
Hi, I can't tell if I'm..
Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Hi, Mayor Ishii and council.
My name is Zandra Castleton.
I'm an adjunct professor, Berkeley resident and parent of a graduating Berkeley High student.
As a parent of a student who has been essentially living in the downtown area because of Berkeley High, it's been very tough and disheartening.
And I want to say that I think that the idea that this question is housing versus a movie theater is a false equivalency.
I think that this group is rightly asking for due diligence.
And I think of San Francisco now desperately trying to bring people back into the downtown.
And I think what we would see is very wealthy people.
Sam, your time is up.
Thank you, Sam.
I could just hear your comment.
Next is Mark Siegel.
Hello.
Actually, Sam here.
Cal alum who's always enjoyed the beautiful details in the UA when I went.
One only need look to the San Francisco Fox to see what regret of destroying the Cinema Palace looks like.
Contrary to Patrick Kennedy's falsehoods, the UA could be more than a cinema.
It could be a multi-purpose event space for live theater, lectures, conferences, concerts, festivals, you name it.
There are innumerably more appropriate sites for housing in Berkeley, but this theater is irreplaceable.
In LA, the Egyptian faced seemingly insurmountable structural issues, yet Netflix restored it to high praise.
Follow the law and help pave the way for a brighter future for Berkeley, one guided by community vision rather than Kennedy's greed.
Thank you.
Next, we have Donna West.
Wait, hold on.
Wait, where'd she go? Donna West.
Hi.
Hi.
OK, thank you.
Good evening, mayor, city council, city staff.
I am a 40-year resident of the Bay Area, and I understand the housing and the prices that we have to have.
But let's move into this new building.
Where is the entertainment in downtown Berkeley that we will have to go to? Do the review.
Both of these buildings may coexist.
As residents of the new building, we need a place to gather and enjoy with each other.
These theaters are open across the country.
They are booming now.
Please leave the residents living in the apartment complex that we are building a place to gather for movie theater entertainment to get out of their closet living.
These two buildings may coexist.
Let the public go in and see behind the partitions.
There are historic.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, your time is up.
Next is Cheryl Davila, former council member.
Thank you.
Can you hear me? Yes.
So it's amazing that the owners of several theaters and filmmakers were at the meeting tonight.
Thank you to the Grand Lake, which is an amazing theater.
I just saw Freaky Tales, their premiere.
And wouldn't that be nice if Berkeley could have a theater downtown to hold an event? That was so amazing.
But Berkeley's downtown is vacant.
The planning department always sides with Patrick Kennedy or any other multi-million dollar developer.
You shouldn't do the CEQA.
Do what you're supposed to do when you're supposed to do it.
Market rate housing is not needed in Berkeley anymore.
And why are we looking at EGLE the whole time? It's really not OK.
Your time is up.
Thank you.
Next is David Roberts.
I yield my time to Madeline Roberts to finish her statement.
Well, she already spoke.
You can't speak two different times.
OK, then I'll speak.
Yes, go ahead.
I am an adjunct professor at UC Berkeley.
I attended graduate school at Berkeley.
I loved going to the movies every time I had an evening off.
I recently attended Elmwood.
And it was a wonderful experience to go there during the day.
It no longer exists in downtown Berkeley.
You can do the right thing.
You can impose, follow the strict letter of the law, not what your staff tells you that they accomplished by their, quote unquote, CEQA review provisions.
Thank you.
OK.
Madeline already spoke.
And Harvey already spoke.
So that's all of the online commenters.
OK, thank you very much.
I'd like to give us actually 15 minutes to take a break because I think we've been sitting a while.
And I know we want to do some comments still.
I'm really trying to model some self-care for us.
So I encourage all of you to get up and take a stretch break as well, have some water.
So thank you.
We'll be back in 15 minutes.
Recording stopped.
Oh, here we go.
Hi, folks.
Our break has come to an end.
If I could please have you take your seats.
Thank you, everyone.
I appreciate the lively chatter.
That's nice.
I got chocolate.
OK.
All right, so we have, just to recap, we did the staff report, presentation from the appellant, presentation from the applicant.
We took public comment, both in person online.
Recording in progress.
And now we are back in person to go over council comments and questions.
So I will look to my parliamentarian here to see if anyone would like to begin.
Oh, and I want to just acknowledge that we have both council members Keserwani and Trageb, I think, still on our Zoom.
So perhaps, actually, council members, if one of you would like to go first since you're online.
Council member Trageb and Keserwani, are you there? OK, yes, I'm here.
And I do not have any questions or comments at this time.
Thank you.
OK, thank you.
Apologies.
OK, go ahead, council member Trageb.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And just to clarify, is this questions only or questions and comments? No, just questions and comments.
OK, thank you.
OK, I would like to thank everyone for devoting their time to be with us tonight.
Thank you to members of the public for being here, as well as the many members of the public who have written in with their comments.
I have reviewed every single comment that I had the opportunity to review.
Let me start by painting a picture.
The city has a deficit that is only likely to be aggravated by the current political and financial situation in our nation and the world.
The city manager just issued a hiring freeze.
Berkeley is just one of the American cities going through these financial austerity measures.
I also was just in a meeting with key state officials.
And the financial situation at the state level does not look any more rosy.
I did not run for office to shy away from difficult decisions.
But this one is undoubtedly one of the hardest ones that I hope I will have to make because of its irreversibility and permanent nature.
I'm a big supporter of the arts overall and performing arts in particular.
It breaks my heart truly to even contemplate an option of demolishing a building that I have fond memories of going to the movies in as a college student that can never be replaced.
The district that I'm honored to serve is unique in its richness and diversity of art organizations, particularly in the performing arts.
I've spoken to many representatives of that industry.
The financial picture of many arts organizations is pretty grim.
If anyone wants to be able to join me in saving the part of the arts district that we still have, whether it be the UC Theater or the Freight or Aurora or Berkeley Rep, I urge you to please join me and consider supporting them by coming to see a movie or a concert, a show or a concert there.
I've met with people who agree in concept that historic buildings and the UA Theater should be protected and saved.
In reality, unfortunately, the city has not received any other offers or proposals for the UA Theater.
So this is the dilemma that I and my colleagues are faced with, deny the appeal and forego the construction of housing units that we desperately need, including dozens of low-income units, or upholding the appeal in the hope that something happens and somebody with millions of dollars buys this property, rehabilitates it, possibly has to tear it down to the studs to rebuild, and then finds a profitable way to recreate the theater in it.
The first option promises to protect and restore the facade and the lobby and provides housing units.
This option will stop the dilapidation of the historic building, save the parts that are still in a condition to be restored, and also bring the city tax revenue that we desperately need as a community.
The second option has no guarantees of anything happening within the next several years or beyond that.
Unfortunately, I have not heard any concrete or even possibly realistic plans that materialize in bringing the right investor to preserve the building the way it is.
If I had a magic wand and in the absence of a new state law, AB 1633, I would have given more time to the people who are serious about preserving the theater to come up with realistic, actionable leads that could not only preserve the building, but also generate the revenue to sustain it and bring much-needed revenue and liveliness to the city and district.
That is not what is before us tonight, however.
And I will just say, both supporters and opponents of the project, and I have listened to every one of your comments and have taken meticulous notes on your key points.
Both of you have implored us to follow the law and do the right thing.
In the absence of any case law on the matter, as this is a new law that has not been tested, I am following the recommendation of our city attorney, which I believe to be legally sound.
I will also note there was a comment about looking at lapsed permits.
This is not before us tonight.
But please know that my office is in conversation with the city manager around what to do if something is demolished and then construction is not initiated within a reasonable amount of time.
Before my final decision tonight, I would like to ask staff, the applicant, and appellant a few questions and provide information for both my and the public's benefit to better understand the issue at hand.
For the staff, can you comment on the question? There was a comment that was made about the developer not legally required to retain the lobby or the features inside the theater that are deemed to be historic and must be preserved.
Can you speak to the force and effect of conditions of approval in the item before us, as well as what steps could be taken should there be a failure by the applicant to comply with such conditions of approval? Real quick, before you respond, Council Member, could you just give us a sense of how many questions you have? And if you're asking both the applicant and appellant, I'd want to ask that they come closer to the front so that they can respond.
That is my only question for staff, and I have three questions apiece for the applicant and appellant, which I will ask in rapid-fire format to save a little bit of time.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you for the question, Council Member.
So the lobby is not considered in any of the studies as one of the character-defining features, and so that was not one of the features that was asked to be preserved, and LPC did not list it as one of the features that should be preserved in its designation.
The ZAB did attach a condition of approval to the permit, requiring a historic resource inventory of the parts of the building, I think mainly the interior parts of the buildings, that should be studied and put into an inventory and submitted to land-use planning prior to final design review.
The project, the inventory, needs to go to final design review and be subject to DRC review before final design review is approved.
Thank you.
What happens if, at the tail end of the process, what accountability does the city have to make sure that the applicant stands by these conditions of approval? As they've agreed to the conditions of approval of the permits, the city will not approve the building permits until all the conditions are met.
Thank you, and DRC is the design review committee or commission of the city.
For the applicant, can you please describe the state of the building? Can you describe which historical components are going to be preserved and restored in their entirety or partially, if you have that information at the moment? Sorry, four questions.
Can you please elaborate on the construction timeline that you estimate? And can you also please provide some information regarding the estimated revenue to the city after your proposed project is complete? Okay.
Okay, is this on? Well, the building that we're proposing is probably going to be worth north of $100 to $120 million in taxable real estate.
So the city's property tax would probably be $2 to $3 million a year.
And the state of the building right now, the theater part of it is, we have photographs of it over there.
It's non-ductile, unreinforced concrete.
It's spalling.
The rebar in it is rotting and rusting.
You can see photographs of it in much the same fashion, actually, of that condominium in Florida that collapsed when the rebar in it rusted and it lost its structural integrity.
The lobby, however, is in pretty decent shape.
It doesn't show water damage nor spalling of the concrete.
And the facade in front is also in decent shape, the part that remains.
The lower one-third of it has been removed.
And we're going to be adding new storefront there and then restoring the upper two-thirds of it per the request of the LPC.
Thank you.
Let me just make sure, yeah.
Construction timeline, to the extent you can estimate that given the current situation nationally? That is very hard to predict.
It's the proposed tariffs are going to significantly impact construction materials.
And it's really a cipher right now, to be honest.
We have no idea what steel, lumber, components from Mexico and elsewhere are going to cost.
But assuming that that stabilizes, once we build the building, it will take approximately 24 months.
Thank you.
And I do have three questions for the appellant.
Could you please share some specific ideas that you think are worth pursuing in order to protect and rehabilitate the theater? Have you encountered anyone who is willing to invest time and money into the preservation and rehabilitation of the theater? And according to the information you have, can you please share what structural condition the theater is in? So I'm going to address, I'm the attorney for the appellant.
I'm going to address the first question and then ask other members of the appellants to address the second and third questions.
Can you identify those people so that they can start moving towards the front, please? Okay, go ahead.
So ideas for rehabilitating.
I think that was the first question.
So one of the things that an EIR would do would be to investigate ideas for rehabilitating the project, I mean the building, or what other feasible alternatives there might be to this particular project description.
So I do not have those ideas because that investigation has not happened.
And exempting the project from CEQA would prevent that investigation from happening.
And that's the entire point of my presentation is that investigation should happen so that those ideas can be vetted publicly.
CEQA has a public process when you have an EIR.
This exemption process is kind of quasi-public because you have an appeal right from the ZAB, but the public participation is not built in.
Whereas if you have an EIR, the public participation is built in.
And at that point, you would have a free forum for ideas that would be alternative to this particular project.
Thank you.
Okay, Council Member, your other two questions were for these folks, I think, to answer.
Whoever wishes to answer them.
I forgot to introduce myself earlier, I'm Rose Ellis.
And can you reframe the question again, please? Absolutely.
Have you encountered anyone who is willing to invest time and money into the preservation and rehabilitation of the theater? And according to the information you have, can you please share what structural condition the theater is in? Alan, could you come up here again? Well, and we did submit a rebuttal to their structural report, and that is part of our appeal.
And so you should have had that to read.
And that was written by a couple of people in our group who are theater historians and also people who run theaters.
I'm going to have Alan Michon come up and explain the condition of the concrete.
But I just want to say, if we had come up with people who wanted to buy this theater or, you know, come up with money, then we would have been accused of being a self-interest, trying to take over the property from Kennedy.
So that was kind of a no-win situation.
We only have five months to really, I mean, I'm sorry, five hearings to fight for the theater.
And we don't feel that it was our purview, our responsibility to find somebody to buy the building.
We're here to argue about CEQA and the law.
I think that that answers the council member's question.
Okay, he's going to discuss.
Well, I just wanted to add to that, that, you know, we are, you know, we've been accused of raising money.
We only raised money at the end.
We've just been working basically off nothing.
And so I'm sorry, I just want to say there's this unfair onus on this community group to suddenly be a deep-pocketed, multimillion-dollar development interest to provide an alternative.
I'm sorry, I don't think the council member's question.
Yeah, I think my question has been answered, unless there's something you'd like to add on the question.
We're just trying to explain.
Excuse me, I'm sorry.
I understand.
And I think his question was just whether or not you had identified, and it's okay that you have.
There are lots of options in this theater, and there's definitely, but if you destroy it, all options are lost.
Thank you.
Understood.
And okay, so you're going to answer the question about the structural condition.
Yeah, if you want to speak to that, I believe that your question is about the structure.
The structure, yes.
The developer just referred to this as an unreinforced concrete building.
That just is not what the definition of this building is.
Unreinforced concrete is concrete without steel and rebar.
This building is the same construction as the Grand Lake.
We had some spalling issues on the back of my theater a few years ago that sort of looked like that.
And what you do when you have that is you expose the area, you sand down the rebar and the steel to remove the rust.
Then you treat it with rust-oleum or something, and then you put the concrete back.
It's what they do on the Golden Gate Bridge year in, year out.
It's what's done on any 20s or 30s or teens steel and concrete building.
That building is a fortress, and the Grand Lake is the same way.
It's steel everywhere and concrete.
It is a high-quality building, and you can't call that unreinforced concrete.
I think you've addressed the question.
Thank you so much.
So I appreciate everyone going into detail, and I've done my very best to review the full body of the record and the communications that we have received.
We are bounded by state law.
It is fast-moving, and it has changed in this regard.

Segment 5

Regardless of what happens tonight, though, I think we can all agree and we will welcome everyone's engagement and ideas around what we can do to ensure that downtown remains or becomes, again, a vibrant, safe, accessible, affordable destination.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember.
I'm going to move on to Councilmember Bartlett.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And I want to thank the people for your energy tonight.
It really warms the heart to see people care about something in our community, and I always encourage it.
And the arts are very special to me and to us.
And you're right.
We should have a movie theater downtown.
We should have things downtown.
We should have places to walk to.
This culture of our city is one of walkability and enjoyment.
However, it seems as if this moment is not the one.
And, you know, while we did lose three theaters in one short time, the same way Oakland lost three sports teams, not a good look.
However, this project will not be the one to save that condition.
It is out of reach and scale.
The cost is prohibitive.
And the very nature of it is just beyond the scope of this city to rescue.
And the nature of this project as well, in terms of the commercial aspect, that train has left the building.
And irrespective of that – and I do, again, want to thank you for your commentary, your energy, your red outfits, and all that.
I want to thank you.
But, again, this is about CEQA, and this is about – this is a very specific thing we're speaking of today.
And, you know, I wish you had been here two weeks ago where you would have seen me fight using CEQA with all my powers and all my energy to require another look at benzene in the soil of a gas station that's being demolished to make an apartment building.
Because, you see, I was concerned about the actual environmental quality to residents in the building, neighbors in the building, workers in the soil in the building.
Benzene, in case you don't know, destroys your nervous system and really gives you a horrible life.
So when you apply your energies in this way, when you marshal resources in the name of CEQA to confront what's really an emotional appeal or a commercial appeal as opposed to the environment, it does a disservice to that law and endangers our people everywhere as it gets weakened as a result.
So tonight, you helped discredit a very important law to protect our children and families in California.
And so – Okay, folks.
Please – Sorry.
Excuse me.
So, again – Your time to speak is over.
Again – Go ahead, Council Member.
I want to thank you for your energy and admonish you to stick to the true issue at play here.
Thank you.
Okay.
Moving on to Council Member Blackbee.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
I just had a few questions and then some comments.
And I'll start – again, thank you to staff for the presentation.
Thanks to the appellant and the applicant for being here and for everyone in the community for being here.
I wanted to just focus this really quickly on slide 10.
And I know this appears throughout the record as well.
Just help me understand – this is in the discussion of the historic resource evaluation.
And the comment here that the significant loss of integrity negates the property's ability to convey significance.
Can you talk a little bit about what that means when you talk about a significant loss of integrity? Is that structural integrity? Is that historical integrity? Like, what does that mean? I may let the applicant give a little bit more information on this.
They may have their historic resource expert be able to speak more on this.
But I believe that the integrity is in reference to the ability of the characteristics, the remaining features in the building to convey the significance of the historic resource.
So there have been a number of alterations of the building over time throughout the decades and since it's been designated a historic resource in the state register that have diminished the features of the building and diminished their capacities to convey the historic significance of the building.
I agree.
Look, you know, we do as a council have an obligation to follow the law.
I think all of my colleagues here are thinking about that and wrestling with that very carefully.
And we're trying our very best to follow the law as it is demonstrated to us under the HAA, under SB 330, and under AB 1633 and how that intersects with CEQA.
So one other question.
And so, again, as I understand kind of what we are to do tonight as we consider this appeal, it's really considering whether the project's eligibility for the infill development exemption is correct and whether or not the project meets the criteria for the historical resource exception.
I mean, that's really our function, as I understand it.
And I've listened a lot kind of to the presentation, to the arguments, and I've read a lot from the experts.
So I think the one question, last question I would just ask, and I'd ask this to staff, and I'd also ask this each, the same question to the applicant and the appellant.
Because, again, I think there's broad agreement that preserving the facade is valuable and is preserving an element that does convey historic significance.
I think preserving elements of the lobby also provide that function.
So my question to each of the parties is, is the auditorium in its current state a character-defining feature that conveys historic significance? I'd like to ask the same question of staff as well as the applicant and the appellant.
So for staff, I can give a little background.
Staff, in consideration of the applicant's consultant as well as the city's consultant, found that there's substantial evidence that the auditorium no longer is a character-defining feature and no longer conveys the significance of the building.
And that's because of the current manifestation of it, the repair, the quality of the environment, all of that? Yeah, the state and the quality of the auditorium as it is, having undergone all the alterations over the years.
Okay.
Can I ask the applicant to answer the same question? Is the auditorium in its current state, in your view, a character-defining feature that continues to convey historic significance? And I'll ask the appellant to also answer the same question.
I just want everybody's views on this particular piece.
Okay.
This photograph right here shows how the once-grand 1,800-seater auditorium was transformed into a large auditorium.
This photograph right here shows how the once-grand 1,800-seat theater has been carved up into four new theaters.
The ceiling has been destroyed.
The decorative moldings throughout the sides and the stage and elsewhere have all been removed and destroyed.
And that has been cataloged, actually, by the architectural historian who says that the proscenium and auditorium has been altered.
The original theater organs and grill have been destroyed.
The atrium and decorative finishes have been destroyed.
The lobby and murals have been altered.
The original theater seats and lounges have been altered.
Essentially, all of the character-defining features in the original theater have been removed or destroyed.
The lobby and the facade are the sole remaining portions of the building that are capable of being restored to their original, close to their original status.
The rest of the building has been modified beyond recognition and repair.
The building also, I did misspoke when I said it was non-reinforced concrete.
It's non-ductile concrete, which is minimal steel reinforcement, but also a seismic hazard to the city and to the adjacent properties.
Thank you.
I think you've addressed the question.
Yeah, and then ask the appellant.
I'm hesitant to have these questions just be opportunities for people to extend their presentation.
So, folks, I just want to ask that people respond to the questions directly and try to stay on topic.
It's just really like this to me is the crux of the whole argument.
And so I just I just really want to agree with you.
Thank you.
So the information I have is the answer to the question is yes.
And I'll just read you from the conclusion of the Rincon report, which is the city's own consultant, which is the second report that they did.
And it said those several aspects of the distinctive art deco design are proposed to be retained.
The proposed demolition of the former theater auditorium would result in loss of integrity of design materials, workmanship, feeling and association.
It would no longer reflect its historic significance for its role in the depression area development of downtown Berkeley, specifically as a purpose built entertainment venue for motion pictures.
So that's what your consultant said.
There's also two gentlemen here, Alan Michonne, who you heard from earlier, who knows what it looks like in there from personal experience.
And Gary Parks, who also has personal visual experience of the ceiling.
The question that was asked is whether there is architectural and value in the auditorium.
What is there? I'd like to use the developers exhibit right here.
If you look, this is what's going on above the ceiling of the new auditoriums in there.
The original ceiling is intact.
It's suspending the ceilings of the multiplex auditoriums by wires that have been placed up through into the attic and tied off to the steel and the rebar in the attic.
Also, here you can see that elements of the major proscenium are still intact.
This is an easy restoration.
I've seen theaters restored around the country where there's been extensive water damage over the course of decades that has melted much of the ornamental plaster.
The Lowe's King in Brooklyn is a perfect example of that.
It was an absolute wreck before.
Restoration is now the pride of that borough.
Please envision this theater as something that can host Broadway touring shows.
It can be restored and it should be.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Appreciate the answers.
And I know there are some, again, responses to some of those criticisms in the Left Coast report, which I also find useful.
It says that, again, the statement characterizing the theater space fails to acknowledge the loss of auditorium's integrity and its subsequent inability to be a character-defining feature or a special space of the property any longer.
That the National Register supports the conclusion that the interior of the theater does not qualify as a character-defining feature, particularly when taking into account its current condition.
So I know there has been some discussion about that on the record.
But again, I appreciate the conversation here.
So let me just finish up with my comments.
So let me just say my lived experience as someone who loves the arts, participates in the arts, values the arts, and the role of the arts here in Berkeley.
I've been a choral singer my entire life, high school, college.
I met my partner Larry in our college chorus.
So it was a very personal thing to me.
I sang with the symphony chorus in San Francisco for 15 years.
I'm a frequent attendee of arts events in Berkeley.
And I firmly believe that downtown Berkeley must continue to be a thriving arts ecosystem, and we have to foster it.
I totally agree with that, and I want to dedicate my time on the council to doing everything I can to make that possible.
But we also, I think I have to separate some of the business argument and some of the historical argument from the legal issue in front of us.
And I do think the record is, I know there is some dispute, but I'm comfortable with what staff has come up with on the record here.
Again, I don't think this is the end of the discussion about the role of the arts in Berkeley.
But as I think my colleague, Councilman Bartlett said, this just may not be the particular project where we can accomplish that particular goal.
But it is a worthy goal, and I share the vision that people here have.
I just think that given the circumstances around this particular project and all the elements of it, the discussion about the historical value, what the law is telling us to do, I'm going to support staff's recommendation here.
So thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember.
Councilmember Lunapara.
Thank you.
I am grateful to this place and celebrate the memories that have been created here.
And I hear the passion and enthusiasm of everyone who has spoken here tonight.
And I love American history and architectural history, and I can see how this building exemplifies that.
And I also wish that we lived in a world where a movie theater was profitable or a possible business to have here, but we don't.
And we cannot keep our city as a museum.
Some of my constituents are forced to live in their cars or couch surf or overcrowd because they can't afford housing.
And although I'm happy to share that rents have gone down in the past few years, partly due to housing development at all income levels, we still have work to do.
Someone joked that students won't live in this tower.
The alternative, historically, has been sleeping in cars or four people to one bedroom apartment, or in UC dorm housing, double the price of new market rate units.
I hear that people want affordable housing.
27 units of very low income units is a lot and is more than the zero that we have now.
And the city will be building 100% affordable housing with the mitigation fees mandated by the city.
This housing is incredibly expensive to build, and to be able to meet the urgent housing needs of our community, we must leverage the capital available to us.
And I recognize that our position here today is specifically on the arguments made by the appellants and to which I agree with the analysis done by our planning department and legal department, and we'll be supporting a denial of this appeal.
Thank you.
So I just want to check and see if anyone has any more questions for the applicant for the appellant, because if not, I would like to close the public hearing itself.
No? Okay.
Then I'd like to close the public hearing.
Let me just, we need a motion for that.
Let me move back.
Move we close the public hearing.
Okay.
Okay.
To close the public hearing, Council Member Kessler-Wang? Yes.
Taplin is absent.
Bartlett? Yes.
Traigub? Aye.
O'Keefe? Yes.
Blackabay? Yes.
Lunapara? Yes.
Humbert? Yes.
And Ishii? Yes.
Mayor Ishii? Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Public hearing is closed.
Thank you, Council Member Lunapara, for your comments.
And Council Member Humbert? Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Excuse me.
First, I do want to say, like, as Council Member Traigub said, that I've looked through the record very, very carefully.
And I think I've read most, if not all of the hundreds of comments that have come in.
It's possible that I've missed a couple, but I really was trying, I try to be very diligent in reading all the public comments and listening tonight.
I want to take a step away very quickly from the quasi-judicial role that we occupy here and the questions, the legal questions, really, that are before us tonight.
I completely understand why people want to see the United Artists continue to serve as a movie theater.
As the only Council Member who still has a first-run movie theater in his district, the Elmwood, I'm extremely sympathetic to the sense of loss that came with the closure of this cultural institution, and which will come when the rear of the building is demolished.
I know I would personally be devastated if the Elmwood Cinema were to close.
But reality is that cinemas are an incredibly tough business right now.
There was a time when a typical U.S.
resident would go to the movies at least once a week.
Now the majority of people only go a handful of times per year.
65% of people would rather watch movies at home, and people tend to prefer to see movies on extra-large screens with state-of-the-art sound, which our historic theaters generally can't feasibly accommodate.
Our task tonight is not to rule on the merits of theaters, though, in general, or in downtown Berkeley specifically.
But I know that's why a lot of you are here.
I appreciate your comments, and I wanted to address this.
Movie theaters are an incredible community asset, but nearly every effort we have made to attract or keep cinemas in Berkeley has fallen flat in the face of these overall cultural headwinds.
Even though these cannot be taken into account when we adjudicate whether this project has met all applicable requirements, I want folks to know I understand their feelings around it and appreciate their passion.
Having said this, what we have to decide tonight is whether the project has met applicable local and state requirements and can therefore move forward.
I feel that Director Klein and planning staff have done an excellent job reviewing this project and taking it through the appropriate processes.
Their presentation tonight superbly summarized the issues before us for consideration, and affirming the ZAB decision is the sensible approach, in my view.
I therefore won't belabor the points they presented this evening and in the staff report.
And I've not heard anything in the public testimony tonight that would lead me to believe that the staff report is inaccurate or that the ZAB's approval of the project was wrongly decided.
Having reviewed the staff report and attended information and listened to testimony tonight, I believe the project conforms to the applicable regulations and procedures and that we must move it forward per the requirements of state law.
Most importantly, the proposed project would maintain and restore those features that have been identified as contributing to the historic resources.
And I believe that satisfies what would be required and sufficiently addresses any CEQA issue.
Thank you.
I'll be supporting the staff proposal, the ZAB decision.
Thank you, Council Member.
Council Member O'Keefe.
Thank you, Mayor.
Many people tonight portrayed the UA Theatre as like this last great cultural venue that we're losing, and we'll have a deserted downtown.
And, okay, UC Theatre, Berkeley Rep, Aurora Theatre, Pacific Film Archive, Freight and Salvage, The Marsh, The Backroom, Cornerstone.
That's just downtown.
Go a half mile out and there's more.
We have problems downtown.
We have vacant storefronts.
But cultural venues are not the problem.
It's the vacant storefronts that are the problem, that make it feel dead.
That's what the UA Theatre is doing right now, and it's not going to come back as it was.
I understand how hard it is to say goodbye to this place full of memories.
I have seen probably 50 movies there.
But change is inevitable.
Does anyone here remember E.D.'s Ice Cream Parlor? Yeah, I still grieve that place.
I think it closed in 1992.
I mean, I feel you.
I don't disregard your feelings.
It's very sad to say goodbye.
My son loves the UA Theatre because he thought they had the best tasting water at the water fountain.
I don't know why, but that makes me cry to think about it going away.
But the thing is, if we want those cultural venues to survive and we want a vibrant downtown, we have to move towards growth.
We have to say goodbye to this.
It's not coming back, and we need to instead bring more people downtown and support the vibrancy of our city.
I'm casting my vote to deny the appeal, support the ZAB decision, because I really honestly believe, all things considered, this is in the best interest of the future of our city.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member.
I just want to check and make sure Council Member Cassarwani doesn't have any comments or doesn't have her hand raised.
No, I do not.
I'm ready to vote.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Just some brief comments.
Just as everyone said, I really love the theatre.
I am very sad that we don't have any movie theatres downtown.
I support third spaces.
My parents were in the film industry.
I grew up with it my whole life.
But I also understand our needs for housing, and I trust our staff and their analysis.
I want to comment on something that was made, a comment that was made earlier about the aerial 3D view image being a fraudulent image.
I just want to highlight for folks that this was supposed to be focused on this project.
Things change on the map around it.
I just want to say that what they shared was not fraudulent.
As was mentioned earlier with Council Member Traiga, we don't have funds to save this theatre.
The Fox Theatre was funded with redevelopment funds, I believe.
These are funds that we just don't have.
I really do want to encourage folks to support some of our other spaces here, but I am also in support of moving forward with staff's recommendations.
With that, I'm going to ask if there's a motion.
If we needed a motion.
I move the staff report, staff recommendation.
Second.
A second from Council Member Humbert.
Thank you.
Since we've got folks online, I'm going to ask the clerk to take the roll, please.
To affirm the decision of the Zoning Adjustments Board and reject the appeal.
Council Member Kesarwani.
Yes.
Taplin is absent.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Traiga.
Aye.
O'Keefe.
Yes.
Blackabay.
Yes.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mayor Ishii.
Yes.
Okay, motion carries.
Thank you, folks.
I'd like to see if there is..
I move we adjourn.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
And we need to..
We adjourn the meeting.
Council Member Kesarwani to adjourn.
Thank you.
Yeah.
No, I'm sorry.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Traiga.
You're welcome to speak with us afterwards, but..
Aye.
Traiga.
O'Keefe.
Excuse me.
Excuse me.
I'm sorry, but now is not your time to speak.
Please continue.
Excuse me.
Excuse me.
Excuse me.
You can wait until afterwards.
Our meeting has not yet adjourned.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Council Member O'Keefe to adjourn.
Yes.
Blackabay.
Yes.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mayor Ishii.
Yes.
Okay.
We are adjourned.
Thank you, Clerk.
Thank you, everyone, for being here this evening.
Thank you for your comments.