attachment 4 drc 02-16-2017 - city of berkeley

1

Jacob, Melinda

Subject: FW: Emails submitted re this project did not make it to the ZAB

********************************************************

Judy Stamps <[email protected]>

Jan 18 (5 days ago)

to ZAB

Comments on 1717 University (#ZP2016-0101) The neighbors living near this project were not aware that the developers had submitted NEW plans for it (dated Nov 11, 2016) until we received an email from the developer telling us about the new plans earlier today (Jan 18th). A week ago, when we received the yellow notice from the city about the ZAB meeting scheduled for Jan 26, the only plans for 1717 University that were posted on the city website were OLD plans (dated June 2016). So, given the very short time we have had to review the NEW plans, the comments below only cover obvious issues in the current version of this project. These include the following: 1. Discrepancies within the plans. The ground-floor plan shown on Page A0.2 indicates that there will be doors, rooms and stairs on the east side of the building. But the "BASELINE FIRST FLOOR PLAN" shown on page A0.4 shows entirely different: a driveway for cars that runs from University Ave to the back of the building. The position of other features (e.g. parking spaces) are also different on the two drawings of the same area. At the very least, the floorplans submitted for the same portion of a project should be internally consistent from one page to the next in the same set of drawings. Otherwise, there is no way for anyone (including the developers) to know what they plan to build at a given location. 2. Excessive list of variances, concessions, waivers, incentives, etc. The developers are asking for a 'laundry list' of zoning variances, waivers and concessions for this project. These include (but are probably not limited to): a. Two extra stories (from 3 to 5 floors) b. Much less open space than required c. Change of set-back to adjacent residential properties from 15' to 0' d. Much less parking than required e. Higher maximum height than allowed (from 30' to 58') f. Converting the back portion of the property (currently zoned R-2A) to commercial use (C-1) g. Increasing the FAR beyond the allowable limit for the location. A letter written to the developers by Mr. Bereket (dated June 10) indicated that " Section 65915(d)(2) states that the applicant shall receive two (2) incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 10 percent of the total units for very low income households". In the same letter, Mr. Bereket indicated that developers were asking for too many waivers for this project. And this was BEFORE the developers reduced the setback from 15' to 0', and reduced the amount of open space. The city and its citizens have spent a considerable amount of time and energy carefully crafting and drafting zoning laws appropriate for this type of project in this type of location. The city may be required to give developers two incentives in exchange for providing low income housing. However, the project should be restricted to two incentives, so that as much as possible, it conforms to the zoning requirements specifically designed for this type of project and location.

ATTACHMENT 4 DRC 02-16-2017

of 36

2

3. Required Parking. According to the letter from the city (from Mr. Bereket, dated June 10) addressed to the developers, this project (restaurant and 28 residential units) is required to have 31 parking spaces. But according to the Nov 11 plans, the project is "required to have 22 parking spaces"... (it will instead provide 14 parking spaces). I assume that the city planner's count of the number of "required" spaces for this project is correct (and the developer's is not). Which leads me to wonder what other 'facts' about zoning requirements that the developers provide on their Nov 11 plans will also turn out to be incorrect. Now that the current plans for the project are available for inspection, I anticipate that other problems with this project may surface once there has been an opportunity for everyone to look them over more carefully. yours, Judy Stamps 1634 Berkeley Way


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Steven Ross <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 11:53 AMTo: Judi StampssCc: Bereket, Immanuel; [email protected]; John SloanSubject: RE: Review for Permit #ZP2016-0101Attachments: RE: 1717 University Ave. proposed redevelopment

Ms. Stamps, I just copied you on an e‐mail that was sent to the neighbors of 1717 University with response to questions about the project. The ZAB staff report will provide more details about the project, which should answer most questions. The purpose of next week’s preview before the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) is to introduce the project and to solicit input form the ZAB and the public. The ZAB will not take any formal action on the project, but will provide direction to the applicant regarding the project design, etc. Delaying the meeting would not serve the goal of informing the public about the project. The meeting will be a good opportunity for you and your neighbors to learn about the project and to provide input. There will be future meetings and opportunities for providing written input regarding the project. While the deadline for including written comments in the ZAB packet is today, comments can also be hand delivered to the ZAB at the meeting. Sincerely, Steve Steven Ross | Associate/Senior Environmental Planner LSA | 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 – – – – – – – – – – – 510-236-6810 Tel Website

From: Judi Stampss [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 8:50 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) <[email protected]> Cc: John Sloan <[email protected]> Subject: Review for Permit #ZP2016‐0101

Dear ZAB Several months ago, residents of the neighborhood near 1717 University Ave went over the set of plans the developers have submitted for this project. We identified a number of questions with respect to the proposed project. These included questions about 1) apparent inconsistencies in the floorplans within the plans themselves, 2) potential unacknowledged changes in zoning for certain portions of the property from residential to mixed-used, 3) the number and type of variances being requested by the developer, 4) inconsistencies with respect to the number of parking places provided, and so on.


of 36

2

Since we are not experts in this area, we then sent a letter to the Planning Department requesting a meeting with someone from the Planning Department who could meet with our representatives and answer the questions that required someone with expertise in the current planning codes. However, to date we have received no response to that letter. We respectfully request that the Project Review for 1717 University that is currently scheduled for January 26th be postponed until after the Planning Department is able to schedule a meeting with our representatives to answer our questions. We also ask that this rescheduling occur soon, since the deadline for submission to letters to the ZAB for items to be discussed at this meeting is next Wednesday (Jan 18th). Otherwise the ZAB meeting on Jan 26th is likely to be overwhelmed with written and oral concerns from the neighbors of 1717 University. They will not only be re-asking the questions listed in our original letter, but some of them are likely to be angered at the lack of response from our civil servants in the Planning Dept when we asked them for informed answers to those questions. yours Judy Stamps 1634 Berkeley Way


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Steven Ross <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 11:32 AMTo: [email protected]: may kandarian; Keith Cranmer; Miriam Ng; Walter Wood; Nelia White; mitchell rose; Stephen

Lakatos; Judi Stampss; John Sloan; ejpinkerton; Robert Pack Browning; Linda Cranmer; Lucia Rose; Bereket, Immanuel; Dorothy D Gregor; Dea Lee

Subject: RE: 1717 University Ave. proposed redevelopmentAttachments: 1717 University Avenue-Responses to Neighbor Questions.pdf

Attached are our responses to the questions that were submitted regarding the 1717 University project. The project is scheduled for a preview before the Zoning Adjustment Board (ZAB) next Thursday, January 26. The staff report will be available on the ZAB’s website on Friday: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/zoningadjustmentsboard/ The purpose of a ZAB preview is to allow the Board members and the public a platform for comments on the project, which hopefully the designer and the applicant will take into consideration as they revise the project going forward. There will be another preview by the Design Review Committee to provide comments and instructions to the applicant and designer team. No decision will be made by ZAB on the 26th. In fact, we don’t expect a decision on this application until April or May, at the earliest. Current plans (11/11/2016) and the traffic and parking study are available on the project webpage: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/1717_UNIVERSITY.aspx Immanuel Bereket are available to meet on Thursday, 1/19, to discuss the project with neighbors. We will try to coordinate a meeting time and place with Bob Campbell and John Sloan. We will follow up with an e‐mail to invite interested neighbors once we are able to schedule a meeting. Sincerely, Steve Steven Ross | Associate/Senior Environmental Planner LSA | 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 – – – – – – – – – – – 510-236-6810 Tel Website

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:03 PM To: Steven Ross; [email protected] Cc: may kandarian; Keith Cranmer; Miriam Ng; Walter Wood; Nelia White; mitchell rose; Stephen Lakatos; Judi Stampss; John Sloan; bobcampbell7; ejpinkerton; Robert Pack Browning; Linda Cranmer; Lucia Rose; Dorothy D Gregor; Dea Lee Subject: 1717 University Ave. proposed redevelopment Mr. Ross -- In light of the January 11, 2017 notice of the Zoning Adjustment Board's scheduled January 26, 2017 Public Hearing on the above-referenced proposed redevelopment project ("Proposed Project"), John Sloan, myself and any other interested persons would like to meet with you and Mr. Bereket regarding the Proposed Project, at your earliest convenience, as you have offered. I attach a list of questions we submitted in early October 2016. At that time it was my


of 36

2

understanding that Mr. Bereket informed Mr. Sloan that you would respond to these questions, which have not yet been addressed. Regards, Bob Campbell


of 36

1717 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Responses to Questions from Neighbors

1. Which is the current version of this proposal (there seem to be at least two different versions

on the Planning Dept. website)?

Answer: It is true there are several versions of the project on the website. The later revisions reflect responses to Staff’s comments on the project. The most recent submittal, dated November 11, 2016, is the project as currently proposed.

2. Is the proposal for rental or condo residences? Answer: The application is being processes as rental development. However, this is question is better answered by the applicant whose contact has been previously provided.

3. Is the current proposal for a “mixed-use” development (residential above commercial) as the plans on page A 1.1 show? Or is it entirely residential, with a driveway and parking on the first floor, as the plans on page A0.4 appear to indicate? Answer: As currently proposed, the project is a mixed-use building consisting of a 18,408 square-foot, 5-story, 57’-8” tall, mixed-use building with 28 dwellings, including 4 Below Market Rate units, 1,863 square feet of commercial floor area (retail floor area or food service with incidental service of beer and wine), 14 automobile and 36 bicycle parking spaces.

4. What density bonus allowances will apply to this proposal and how will they be

granted? Answer: Based on the applicant’s commitment to provide 11 percent of the base project, or three Below Market Rate (BMI) units (3 Very Low Income [50% AMI], the proposed project is entitled to a density bonus, two concessions/ incentives and modifications/waivers under Government Code Section 65915. The applicant is requesting the following permits under the State Government Code Section 65915:

• Concession to exceed the height limit of 30’ feet to propose a height of 57’8” in the C-1 Zoning District;

• Concession to exceed the story limit of 3 stories to propose 5 stories in the C-1 Zoning District;

• Waiver to reduce required off-street parking from 28 to 14 spaces; • Waiver to reduce required rear yard setback from 15’ to 0’; and, • Waiver to reduce the required Usable Open Space from 5,600 square feet to 2,812

square feet.

5. How is this property zoned? Is the entire parcel C-1 or is the back portion R2A?

Answer: The property has a split zone between C-1 (General Commercial) and R-2A (Restricted Multiple-Family Residential District). In addition, this parcel is located within University Avenue Mixed-Use Overlay. The majority of the project site (including the driveway)


of 36

is located within the C-1 zoning district. The northernmost portion of the lot (24’-11” deep, totaling approximately 1,245 square feet) is located within the R-2A District.

6. If the parcel is divided, where exactly is the dividing line? Answer: The property is not divided at the zoning district boundary (see response above).There is no proposal to subdivide the land. Whether or not the applicant intends to file a condominium map, allow for future subdivision, the City has not received such an application, and I recommend you reach out to the applicant, Mr. Matthew Fialho ([email protected]).

7. If the parcel is divided, does the zoning board have to authorize the conversion of a residential lot to commercial? Answer: The City has not received any plans to subdivide the land. Note: The C-1 District and the University Avenue Mixed-Use Overlay allow commercial uses on the ground floor facing University Avenue and dwellings above the ground floor. As proposed, the project would not require zoning amendment.

8. Does the zoning board have to authorize the grant of an easement by 1933 McGee to widen the driveway? Answer: (1) The Zoning Adjustments Board would not, and legally could not, grant an easement to the project; (2) As proposed, vehicular access would be provided from McGee Street through the existing driveway, which has been reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer; and (3) as proposed, the Traffic Engineer has determined the existing driveway off of McGee is adequate for the proposed traffic volume and it need not be expanded.

9. What are the inclusionary requirements (for affordability) for this proposal and how will

they be met? Answer: The proposed project is subject to the City’s Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee, which requires that the project (1) set aside 20% of the units affordable to Low-Income and Very Low-Income households; or (2) pay mitigation fee equal to 20% of the project; or (3) provide less than 20% of market rate units as Low-Income and Very Low-Income Units and pay a proportionately reduced fee as calculated in BMC Section 22.20.065.D. In this case, the applicant has elected to provide one Low-Income unit to the project to comply with the Code. This would bring the total below market units on the project to four (3 Very-Low Income and 1 Low-Income unit) and the applicant would pay additional fee to fully satisfy the requirements of BMC Section 22.20.065.

10. What zoning standards apply to this property in the following categories: Answer: Per the C-1 District requirements, the project is required to provide 14 residential parking spaces (1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.) and six commercial parking spaces (1 space per 300 sq. ft.), for a total of 20 off-street parking spaces. The project is proposing 14 parking spaces, which would result in 6-space shortfall. The applicant has requested that the shortfall


of 36

mailto:[email protected]

be addressed through a density bonus waiver for a reduction in parking requirements as allowed under Government Code Section 65915-65918.

11. Parking? How does the proposal differ from this standard? Answer: See above.

12. One version of the proposal seems to include multi-level parking lifts. Neighbors are interested in noise and visual impacts from the lifts. What can be done to mitigate their noise? How many levels do they have? How tall are they? Will they extend below grade level (are there water table issues)? Answer: The project includes four 3- car vehicle lifts within a garage at the rear of the property.

13. What would be the process for “un-parking” the top car on a 3-car lift? How much time

would that take? What would be the noise impact on the neighborhood? Answer: This question is better answered by the applicant, regarding the specific lift system that would be installed. However, it is not uncommon to have three levels of parking in parking lift system. The parking lifts have a below-grade pit that allows vehicles to be lowered to allow parking of the top vehicle. Sheet A3.1 is a cross-section of the building showing the parking lift and below-grade pit. The lifts use a hydraulic system that is relatively quiet. Solid walls on three sides of the garage would minimize noise experienced by adjacent neighbors.

14. In practice, are parking lifts used for their intended purpose? Any studies?

Parking lifts such as those proposed for this project are fairly common in projects such as this, and have been used in Berkeley for over a decade. We are not aware of any studies of their use.

15. Will first-floor under-the-building parking be required? If not, why not? Parking is being proposed on the ground level to address the project’s parking requirements.

16. Will residents be eligible for residential parking permits? Answer: The residents will NOT be eligible for residential parking permits because the project is requesting a parking reduction. Further, per City requirements, the applicant will be required to unbundle parking from the units, meaning that parking spaces do not have to be rented solely to residents.

17. Height? How does the proposal differ from this standard?


of 36

Answer: The application seeks to exceed the C-1 Height limit of 30’ to propose a height of 57’8” in the C-1 portion of the lot. The R-2A portion would be 23’ where a maximum of 35’ is allowed.

18. How does the proposal compare to the heights of nearby buildings (e.g., what is the

height of cell tower on the AHA building next door)? Answer: I do not know the exact height measurement of adjacent buildings. This illustration provides good depiction of the proposed height when compared to the two adjacent buildings on each side.

19. Shadowing adjoining properties? How does the proposal differ from this standard? The shadow study diagrams in the most recent revision do not appear entirely accurate (compare, e.g., the location of the house at 1710 Berkeley Way property on the submitted diagram vs. the location depicted on the satellite image from Google Earth). What can be done to assure the submitted diagrams are accurate (i.e., location and size of buildings and lots, as well shadow depictions)? What are the parameters of the shadow studies? Will the developer be required address the impact on established plants and trees and annual winter/summer vegetable gardens? The shadow study diagrams in the most recent revision show windows on the adjacent apartment buildings as impacted by shadows. How would each window be impacted in terms of hours/day of direct sunlight (if any). Answer: The University Avenue Strategic Plan Overlay has a solar rear yard setback requirement for development projects on the north side of University Avenue (BMC 23E.36.070.C(1)(a). The setback precludes buildings from casting a shadow at noon on the winter solstice (December 21) more than 20 feet onto any lot in an adjacent residential zone. The project complies with this requirement as shown on the shadow studies, plan sheet A0.7 and sheet A0.1. This setback would avoid substantial shading of the living area of residential units of properties to the north. However, due to the five-story height of the structure, the proposed building would cast shadows on the windows of residential units in the adjacent mixed-use buildings to the east and west, but the 5- to 10-foot side yard building separations would reduce these shading impacts.

20. Setbacks? How does the proposal differ from this standard? What are the zoning

standards for the elevations and set-backs at the North end of the property? What are the proposed elevations and set-backs at the North end of the property? What walls, if


of 36

any, are proposed for the North boundary of the property? What are the zoning restrictions for such walls?

Answer: Refer to the plans showing building elevations and setbacks. The property’s rear (northern) side is zoned R-2A. Per the R-2A, the required rear yard setback is 15’. The applicant is seeking waiver under the State Density Bonus law to reduce required rear yard setback from 15’ to 0’

21. Floor-area-ratio? How does the proposal differ from this standard?

Answer: The maximum allow able FAR for the C-1 portion is 2.2. The proposed FAR is 2.18. The maximum allowable lot coverage for the R-2A portion of the lot is 40% (for a two-story building). The applicant is proposing 80%.

22. Privacy issues vis-a-vis adjoining properties? How does the proposal differ from this standard? Will the developer be required to provide a depiction of the proposed project from the North end looking South?

Answer: The project design proposes a five-story building on the front portion of the lot with an attached two story building in the rear of the lot, constructed over the parking lot. The smaller rear building would provide a transition between the lower-density residential neighborhood to the north and the proposed five-story main building. The substantial setback to the main building is also designed to respect the solar rear yard setback requirement of the University Avenue Strategic Plan. The main building would be constructed to the side property lines at the front of the lot adjacent to University Avenue, but would have five-foot side yard setbacks above the podium level starting 15 to 26 feet from the front property line. These setbacks, when combined with setbacks on the adjacent properties would allow for operable windows and would provide light, air, and some views to residents of the project site and in the adjacent buildings. Impacts to privacy will be further refined as the application progress through the review process.

23. Usable open space? What is the overall size of the proposal's usable open space? What is the break-down of various forms of open space that constitute that total (rooftop terrace, private balconies, shared balconies, non-parking ground-level paved areas, ground-level plantings)? Answer: The project is required to provide a total of 5,600 sq. ft. of usable open space. In order to qualify as such, the open space must be at least 10’ x 10’. The only area of the project that would qualify as such is the roof deck (2,291 SF) and podium level (521 SF). The setback areas do not qualify as usable open space. Balconies are also proposed for the units on the north side of the residential building. To address the deficiency, the applicant is requesting a waiver under the State Density Bonus Law Waiver to reduce the required Usable Open Space from 5,600 square feet to 2,812 square feet.


of 36

24. What finish materials are proposed for the exterior surfaces (walls, windows, window framing, etc.)? Answer: The entire application material, including drawings, color and material palette, including landscaping plan can be found here: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/1717_UNIVERSITY.aspx With respect to the proposed finished material, it can be found here: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_ZAB/2016-11-11_RESUB_PLANS_2_1717%20University.pdf Note: the plans depicted in the drawings are proposed by the applicant, and have not been approved by the Design Review Committee, the Zoning Adjustments Board or by any other City body.

25. Where is the proposed dumpster storage area?

Answer: I have outlined the exact location of trash/recycling enclosure for the residential portion of the project.

26. Is there a solar energy requirement? Answer: If you mean to ask if the project is required by the City Code to install solar panels, there is no such requirements. However, the project is required to comply with Title 24. In addition, based the GreenPoint check list the applicant submitted, the project scores 118 points out of a possible 381 points. For a project such as this, the minimum requirements is 50 points out of 381 points. The current project design includes solar panels over a portion of the roof deck. Per the C-1 District, there is a setback requirements for buildings north side of University Avenue.

Trash and recycling


of 36

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/1717_UNIVERSITY.aspx

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/1717_UNIVERSITY.aspx

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_ZAB/2016-11-11_RESUB_PLANS_2_1717%20University.pdf

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_ZAB/2016-11-11_RESUB_PLANS_2_1717%20University.pdf

Solar Rear Yard Setback: Buildings on the north side of University Avenue shall not cast a shadow at noon more than 20 feet onto any lot in a residential zone as calculated when the sun is at a 29 degree angle above the horizon (winter solstice).

27. Neighbors have concerns about the effect of adding more people to the residential neighborhood. Assuming maximum occupancy, how many additional residents would be added to this block? Answer: The project proposes a total of 28 units, comprised of 11 2-bedroom units, 8 1-bedroom units, and 9 studio units. Assuming an average of 2 persons per unit, the project would house 56 residents. The Zoning Code does not have a maximum occupancy standard.


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

Subject: FW: 1717 University Ave. proposed redevelopment

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:03 PM To: Steven Ross; [email protected] Cc: may kandarian; Keith Cranmer; Miriam Ng; Walter Wood; Nelia White; mitchell rose; Stephen Lakatos; Judi Stampss; John Sloan; bobcampbell7; ejpinkerton; Robert Pack Browning; Linda Cranmer; Lucia Rose; Dorothy D Gregor; Dea Lee Subject: 1717 University Ave. proposed redevelopment Mr. Ross -- In light of the January 11, 2017 notice of the Zoning Adjustment Board's scheduled January 26, 2017 Public Hearing on the above-referenced proposed redevelopment project ("Proposed Project"), John Sloan, myself and any other interested persons would like to meet with you and Mr. Bereket regarding the Proposed Project, at your earliest convenience, as you have offered. I attach a list of questions we submitted in early October 2016. At that time it was my understanding that Mr. Bereket informed Mr. Sloan that you would respond to these questions, which have not yet been addressed. Regards, Bob Campbell


of 36

Robert F. Campbell2831 Telegraph Avenue

Oakland, CA 94609

January 18, 2016

Immanuel BereketSteven RossCity of BerkeleyPlanning and Development Department

RE: 1717 University Avenue Proposed Redevelopment

Dear Messrs. Bereket and Ross:

This responds to various communications between you (the “Planners”) andmembers of the 1717 University Neighbors group and others (collectively the “Group”)over the past few days regarding the above-reference project.

I request in the strongest possible way that the scheduled January 26, 2017 ZoningAdjustments Board (“ZAB”) hearing on the above-referenced project (“Project”) bepostponed indefinitely until those who may be detrimentally impacted have had areasonable opportunity to provide informed comments on the Project. My reasons are asfollows:

1. Early Request for Information Was Ignored. In early October 2016 the Groupsubmitted a list of questions regarding the Project for the purpose of makinginformed comments and possibly generating additional questions. At thetime, I understand, a Group representative, Mr. Sloan, asked for a meetingwith the Planners and was told by Mr. Bereket that Mr. Ross would respondto the Group’s questions. No response of any kind whatsoever wasprovided until January 18, 2017 after complaints made by the Group,beginning January 16, 2017 (prompted in part by the January 11, 2017notice of the January 26, 2017 hearing date), that this request forinformation had been ignored. I do not know why the Planners failed topromptly respond to the Group’s questions, but absent evidence to thecontrary it is fair to presume the failure was intentional and the Group wasduped into complacency. This is underscored by the fact that the Plannerswere able to respond to the Group’s questions within two days after theGroup raised this issue.


of 36

Berkeley Planning DepartmentPage 2January 18, 2017

2. November 11, 2016 Resubmitted Plans and Traffic Study Were Not Posteduntil after January 16, 2017. On January 16, 2017 I checked the Planningand Development Department’s (“PDD”) website for the project and foundthat the most recent resubmitted plans for the Project were made July 20,2016. Upon receipt today of the Planners’ responses to the Group’squestions I discovered for the first time that on November 11, 2016resubmitted plans and a traffic study were, apparently, submitted to thePDD. Again, I do not know why the PDD failed to promptly post theNovember 11, 2016 for public review, but absent evidence to the contrary itis fair to presume the failure was intentional and the Group again was dupedinto complacency.

3. The ZAB Hearing is an Important Event. An email dated January 18, 2017from Mr. Ross to Judy Stamps states:

“The purpose of next week’s preview before [the ZAB] is tointroduce the project and to solicit input from the ZAB and the public. TheZAB will not take any formal action on the project, but will providedirection to the applicant regarding the project design, etc.

“Delaying the meeting would not serve the goal of informing thepublic about the project. The meeting will be a good opportunity for youand your neighbors to learn about the project and provide input. There willbe future meetings and opportunities for providing written input regardingthe project. While the deadline for providing written comments in the ZABpacket is today, comments can also be hand delivered to the ZAB at themeeting.”

My understanding is that only comments made prior to or at the hearing may beconsidered, at least with respect to an appeal of the ZAB decision. Is this correct? Whatfacts, if any, support the blanket statement that “Delaying the meeting would not serve thegoal of informing the public about the project”? It would help me by allowing me areasonable opportunity, e.g., to review and comment on the November 11, 2016resubmitted plans and traffic study which I believe were posted for the first time today.

Notwithstanding, my comments (while reserving the right to make additionalcomments at the hearing), are as follows:


of 36

Berkeley Planning DepartmentPage 3January 18, 2017

1. I object to the applicant’s request for a permit granting a concession toexceed the height limit of 30' feet to propose a height of 57'8" in theC-1 zoning District.

2. I object to the applicant’s request for a permit granting a concession toexceed the story limit of 3 stories to propose 5 stories in the C-1 ZoningDistrict.

3. I object to the applicant’s request for a permit granting a waiver to reducerequired off street parking from 28 to 14 spaces.

4. I object to the applicant’s request for a permit granting a waiver to reducerequired rear yard setback from 15' to 0'.

5. I object to the applicant’s request for a permit granting a waiver to reducethe required Usable Open Space from 5,600 square feet to 2,812square feet.

These objections are made on the grounds that the variances sought are excessive and willhave detrimental effects on the surrounding neighborhood disproportionate to benefits, ifany, to the applicant and/or the community. Further, any benefits provided by therequested variances may be accomplished by modifications to the design of the project,such as below building parking. In addition, I question the feasibility of the design of theproposed parking structure, given the area’s high water table, and its nuisance impact(e.g., noise) on the neighborhood.

Sincerely,Robert Campbell

Robert F. CampbellRFC/rfc

CC 1717 University Neighbors group


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Judi Stampss <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 1:10 PMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: Last minute posting of revised plans for 1717 University

It is unfortunate that the revised plans that the developer submitted to the city for this project on Nov 11 were not posted on the Berkeley website until very recently. When I checked the city website on Jan 15th (after receiving the notice of the Jan 26 review of the project from the city) the only plans posted there were the old plans, dated July 7 and July 11. When exactly WERE the plans (dated Nov 11) posted on the city's website? The CURRENT plans for a project should, at the very least, be available for review on the city website on the same date that the city sends out the notice that tells citizens to go to that website to look at them. That was clearly not the case here. Expecting citizens to review a new set of plans within a few hours of the deadline for sending email comments about them is ridiculous! Judy Stamps 1634 Berkeley Way Berkeley, CA

From: Steven Ross <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: may kandarian <[email protected]>; Keith Cranmer <[email protected]>; Miriam Ng <[email protected]>; Walter Wood <[email protected]>; Nelia White <[email protected]>; mitchell rose <[email protected]>; Stephen Lakatos <[email protected]>; Judi Stampss <[email protected]>; John Sloan <[email protected]>; ejpinkerton <[email protected]>; Robert Pack Browning <[email protected]>; Linda Cranmer <[email protected]>; Lucia Rose <[email protected]>; Immanuel Bereket <[email protected]>; Dorothy D Gregor <[email protected]>; Dea Lee <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 11:32 AM Subject: RE: 1717 University Ave. proposed redevelopment Attached are our responses to the questions that were submitted regarding the 1717 University project. The project is scheduled for a preview before the Zoning Adjustment Board (ZAB) next Thursday, January 26. The staff report will be available on the ZAB’s website on Friday: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/zoningadjustmentsboard/ The purpose of a ZAB preview is to allow the Board members and the public a platform for comments on the project, which hopefully the designer and the applicant will take into consideration as they revise the project going forward. There will be another preview by the Design Review Committee to provide comments and instructions to the applicant and designer team. No decision will be made by ZAB on the 26th. In fact, we don’t expect a decision on this application until April or May, at the earliest.


of 36

2

Current plans (11/11/2016) and the traffic and parking study are available on the project webpage: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/1717_UNIVERSITY.aspx Immanuel Bereket are available to meet on Thursday, 1/19, to discuss the project with neighbors. We will try to coordinate a meeting time and place with Bob Campbell and John Sloan. We will follow up with an e-mail to invite interested neighbors once we are able to schedule a meeting. Sincerely, Steve Steven Ross | Associate/Senior Environmental Planner LSA | 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 – – – – – – – – – – – 510-236-6810 Tel Website


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Steven Ross <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 12:02 PMTo: Robert Pack Browning; John Sloan; [email protected]: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: Meeting with 1717 neighbors

Robert, John, and Bob, Immanuel and I are available to meet with interested neighbors tomorrow, Thursday 1/19, to discuss the project. We could meet at the City offices or in a home or other location near the project site. I’m sending this notice to the three of you who seem to be primary contacts. Please let me know your available to meet, and preferred location. Once a time/location is established, a notice can be sent to the entire distribution list. Today you can reach me via my cell phone: 510‐506‐2201. Thanks, Steve Steven Ross | Associate/Senior Environmental Planner LSA | 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 – – – – – – – – – – – 510-236-6810 Tel Website


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: may kandarian <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 1:17 PMTo: Judi StampssCc: Steven Ross; [email protected]; Keith Cranmer; Miriam Ng; Walter Wood; Nelia

White; mitchell rose; Stephen Lakatos; John Sloan; ejpinkerton; Robert Pack Browning; Linda Cranmer; Lucia Rose; Bereket, Immanuel; Dorothy D Gregor; Dea Lee

Subject: Re: 1717 University Ave. proposed redevelopment

Yes. May Kandarian, MPH 1918 Grant St. On Jan 18, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Judi Stampss wrote:

It is unfortunate that the revised plans that the developer submitted to the city for this project on Nov 11 were not posted on the Berkeley website until very recently. When I checked the city website on Jan 15th (after receiving the notice of the Jan 26 review of the project from the city) the only plans posted there were the old plans, dated July 7 and July 11. When exactly WERE the plans (dated Nov 11) posted on the city's website? The CURRENT plans for a project should, at the very least, be available for review on the city website on the same date that the city sends out the notice that tells citizens to go to that website to look at them. That was clearly not the case here. Expecting citizens to review a new set of plans within a few hours of the deadline for sending email comments about them is ridiculous! Judy Stamps 1634 Berkeley Way Berkeley, CA

From: Steven Ross <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: may kandarian <[email protected]>; Keith Cranmer <[email protected]>; Miriam Ng <[email protected]>; Walter Wood <[email protected]>; Nelia White <[email protected]>; mitchell rose <[email protected]>; Stephen Lakatos <[email protected]>; Judi Stampss <[email protected]>; John Sloan <[email protected]>; ejpinkerton <[email protected]>; Robert Pack Browning <[email protected]>; Linda Cranmer <[email protected]>; Lucia Rose <[email protected]>; Immanuel Bereket <[email protected]>; Dorothy D Gregor <[email protected]>; Dea Lee <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 11:32 AM Subject: RE: 1717 University Ave. proposed redevelopment Attached are our responses to the questions that were submitted regarding the 1717 University project. The project is scheduled for a preview before the Zoning Adjustment Board (ZAB) next Thursday, January 26. The staff report will be available on the ZAB’s website on Friday:


of 36

2

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/zoningadjustmentsboard/ The purpose of a ZAB preview is to allow the Board members and the public a platform for comments on the project, which hopefully the designer and the applicant will take into consideration as they revise the project going forward. There will be another preview by the Design Review Committee to provide comments and instructions to the applicant and designer team. No decision will be made by ZAB on the 26th. In fact, we don’t expect a decision on this application until April or May, at the earliest. Current plans (11/11/2016) and the traffic and parking study are available on the project webpage: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/1717_UNIVERSITY.aspx Immanuel Bereket are available to meet on Thursday, 1/19, to discuss the project with neighbors. We will try to coordinate a meeting time and place with Bob Campbell and John Sloan. We will follow up with an e-mail to invite interested neighbors once we are able to schedule a meeting. Sincerely, Steve Steven Ross | Associate/Senior Environmental Planner LSA | 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 – – – – – – – – – – – 510-236-6810 Tel Website From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:03 PM To: Steven Ross; [email protected] Cc: may kandarian; Keith Cranmer; Miriam Ng; Walter Wood; Nelia White; mitchell rose; Stephen Lakatos; Judi Stampss; John Sloan; bobcampbell7; ejpinkerton; Robert Pack Browning; Linda Cranmer; Lucia Rose; Dorothy D Gregor; Dea Lee Subject: 1717 University Ave. proposed redevelopment Mr. Ross -- In light of the January 11, 2017 notice of the Zoning Adjustment Board's scheduled January 26, 2017 Public Hearing on the above-referenced proposed redevelopment project ("Proposed Project"), John Sloan, myself and any other interested persons would like to meet with you and Mr. Bereket regarding the Proposed Project, at your earliest convenience, as you have offered. I attach a list of questions we submitted in early October 2016. At that time it was my understanding that Mr. Bereket informed Mr. Sloan that you would respond to these questions, which have not yet been addressed. Regards, Bob Campbell


of 36

3


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Robert Pack Browning <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 11:45 PMTo: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: Re: 1717 University Avenue

Thanks, Mr. Bereket, for your message. Unfortunately, all the items offered under the heading in your note lead to a blank screen. Can you please send something with content? --Rob Browning On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Bereket, Immanuel <[email protected]> wrote:

Robert,

Website has been updated with the latest plans as well as the traffic study.

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/1717_UNIVERSITY.aspx

Manny

From: Steven Ross [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 5:01 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Bereket, Immanuel <[email protected]> Subject: 1717 University Avenue

Hi Robert,

Thanks for calling me regarding the 1717 University Avenue project. Below is a link the project web page. I noticed that the web page does not have the most recent set of plans that were resubmitted in November 2016. Maybe Manny can have those uploaded soon. The project looks pretty much the same as the July 20th plans that are on the website.


of 36

2


Here’s a link to the ZAB webpage where the staff report will be posted around July 20th, when the staff report and agenda packet is finalized for distribution: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/zoningadjustmentboard/

I’m happy to me with you and other neighbors before July 20th to discuss the project. However, I think the staff report will address many questions. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven Ross | Associate/Senior Environmental Planner

LSA | 157 Park Place

Pt. Richmond, CA 94801

– – – – – – – – – – –

510-236-6810 Tel

Website


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Bereket, ImmanuelSent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 9:46 AMTo: 'Steven Ross'; [email protected]: RE: 1717 University Avenue

Robert, Website has been updated with the latest plans as well as the traffic study. http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/1717_UNIVERSITY.aspx Manny

From: Steven Ross [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 5:01 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Bereket, Immanuel <[email protected]> Subject: 1717 University Avenue Hi Robert, Thanks for calling me regarding the 1717 University Avenue project. Below is a link the project web page. I noticed that the web page does not have the most recent set of plans that were resubmitted in November 2016. Maybe Manny can have those uploaded soon. The project looks pretty much the same as the July 20th plans that are on the website. http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/1717_UNIVERSITY.aspx Here’s a link to the ZAB webpage where the staff report will be posted around July 20th, when the staff report and agenda packet is finalized for distribution: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/zoningadjustmentboard/ I’m happy to me with you and other neighbors before July 20th to discuss the project. However, I think the staff report will address many questions. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Steve Steven Ross | Associate/Senior Environmental Planner LSA | 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 – – – – – – – – – – – 510-236-6810 Tel Website


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

Subject: FW: 1717 University Ave. development

From: Claudia Currie‐Gleason [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 1:01 PM To: Linda Maio <[email protected]> Cc: Dea Lee <[email protected]>; Jeff Stein <jstein@taylor‐engineering.com>; John Sloan <[email protected]>; Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: 1717 University Ave. development

Hi Linda, I’m sure you have seen these emails, below, but wanted to underscore at least one of the neighbor’s concerns: street parking. What can we do to ease this situation? Our neighborhood is already deluged with too many cars for the available space. Some of our neighbors don’t have garages, driveways or anywhere to park their cars off the street. Even if folks do have driveways or garages, we can’t make them park in them. Adding to this already tight situation, parking enforcement is less than optimum due to fewer employees in that department. If apartment residents are also issued area permits, the situation becomes more difficult. Recently, someone who doesn’t live on our street but has an E permit parked in front of our house for longer than three days. Some of these families have more than one car, further adding to the congestion. We cannot, in our neighborhood, issue parking permits to apartment residents. The buildings themselves must support the residents’ parking needs. This seems pretty specific to the neighborhoods near Downtown Berkeley. Are there other measures we can take to ensure parking for homeowners? Should we move to assigning spots to the residents? Should we issue permits by street and not area? These ideas are off the top of my head; I’m sure there are far better ideas to be had. Driving and car ownership is not going away, especially with public transit in it’s current miserable state. I hope there is something we can do to take the stress off. How do we, as a neighborhood, insist that the City of Berkeley does not issue permits to people who live in the apartments? Thanks for your attention to this. Claudia Currie-Gleason <snip>

From: Jeff Stein <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1717 University Ave. development Date: January 13, 2017 at 11:43:03 AM PST To: John Sloan <[email protected]>, "'Dea Lee Hi John, How do we contact ZAB? Can you share your questions?


of 36

2

I am concerned about the lack of parking. 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit means they will take up all the nearby street parking. Do you know if the residents will qualify for Area E parking permits? Jeff Stein 1625 Berkeley Way, Berkeley CA 94703 510-220-3932 -----Original Message----- From: John Sloan [mailto:[email protected]]

<snip>

Subject: RE: 1717 University Ave. development Please..everyone...ask the ZAB to postpone this hearing until the the Planninng Dept. responds to our questions. We wrote them many months ago with a list of questions about this project. From our side...detailed...big questions...and they have not even acknowledged that letter. This project has great impact on at least one parcel of residential property that it abuts on Berkeley Way. John Sloan -----Original Message----- From: Dea Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 7:48 AM

<snip>

Subject: 1717 University Ave. development Zoning adjustment board hearing for above, Thursday, Jan. 26, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers, 2134 ML King, 2nd floor. (1) demolish an existing 3,309 sq ft 3 story commercial building and 680 sq ft family dwelling (2) construct a 18,408 sq ft, 5 story, 57' tall, mixed use bldg with 28 residential units, 1,868 sq ft commercial floor area (retail or food), 14 auto and 36 bicycle parking spaces.


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Bereket, ImmanuelSent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:50 AMTo: 'Robert Pack Browning'Subject: RE: 1717 University AvenueAttachments: 1717 University Avenue response.docx

Hi Robert, The link is to a website where the various versions of the drawings are uploaded. I drafted a response to inquiries a while back and passed it on to the contract planner who is in charge. I have attached a response. Some of the height measurements and setbacks may have changed since the plans have been revised. http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/1717_UNIVERSITY.aspx With respect to a ZAB preview, no action will be taken. Previews are meant to provide a platform for the ZAB members as well as the public to provide their comments/instructions etc. to the applicant so that the applicants take these comments into consideration as they go forward with the application. A ZAB preview is not required for any project, but I feel it is appropriate in these case given the community interest on the project. I also anticipate another preview with the design board. I hope this helps. Manny From: Robert Pack Browning [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 11:45 PM To: Bereket, Immanuel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 1717 University Avenue

Thanks, Mr. Bereket, for your message. Unfortunately, all the items offered under the heading in your note lead to a blank screen. Can you please send something with content? --Rob Browning On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Bereket, Immanuel <[email protected]> wrote:

Robert,

Website has been updated with the latest plans as well as the traffic study.



of 36

2

Manny

From: Steven Ross [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 5:01 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Bereket, Immanuel <[email protected]> Subject: 1717 University Avenue

Hi Robert,

Thanks for calling me regarding the 1717 University Avenue project. Below is a link the project web page. I noticed that the web page does not have the most recent set of plans that were resubmitted in November 2016. Maybe Manny can have those uploaded soon. The project looks pretty much the same as the July 20th plans that are on the website.


Here’s a link to the ZAB webpage where the staff report will be posted around July 20th, when the staff report and agenda packet is finalized for distribution: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/zoningadjustmentboard/

I’m happy to me with you and other neighbors before July 20th to discuss the project. However, I think the staff report will address many questions. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven Ross | Associate/Senior Environmental Planner

LSA | 157 Park Place


of 36

3

Pt. Richmond, CA 94801

– – – – – – – – – – –

510-236-6810 Tel

Website


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Bereket, ImmanuelSent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 2:31 PMTo: '[email protected]'; Bereket, ImmanuelCc: 'Steven Ross'Subject: RE: 1717 University Ave. proposed redevelopment

Bob, I see that I was copied in the email based on the chain of emails but I never got to me. Can you resend it to [email protected] with everyone else copied, including those in your original email? I want to loop everyone in as we progress with the application review process. I want to set up a meeting and also explain the purpose of the ZAB preview. Please propose what works for you guys this week? Also, I need to know the size of attendees so I can reserve a room accordingly. Additionally, please note the purpose of a ZAB preview is to allow the Board members and the public a platform for comments on the project, which hopefully the designer and the applicant will into consideration as they revise the project going forward. There will be another preview by the Design Review Committee to provide comments and instructions to the applicant and designer team. No decision will be made on the 26th. In fact, we don’t expect a decision made on this application until April‐May. Regards, Manny

From: Steven Ross [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:33 PM To: Bereket, Immanuel <[email protected]> Subject: FW: 1717 University Ave. proposed redevelopment

Hi Manny, Let me know if you would like to attend a meeting with me and the neighbors. If yes, let me know your preferred dates times this week or next. I’m available most of the day on Thursday (not in the evening). Maybe also available Wednesday afternoon. I’ll be out of town this weekend (leaving Friday afternoon). Next week my schedule is more flexible. The staff report responds to most of the questions submitted by the neighbors, but that isn’t public yet. I could now prepare responses based on info. in the draft staff report. ‐Steve Steven Ross | Associate/Senior Environmental Planner LSA | 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 – – – – – – – – – – – 510-236-6810 Tel


of 36

2

Website

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:03 PM To: Steven Ross; [email protected] Cc: may kandarian; Keith Cranmer; Miriam Ng; Walter Wood; Nelia White; mitchell rose; Stephen Lakatos; Judi Stampss; John Sloan; bobcampbell7; ejpinkerton; Robert Pack Browning; Linda Cranmer; Lucia Rose; Dorothy D Gregor; Dea Lee Subject: 1717 University Ave. proposed redevelopment Mr. Ross -- In light of the January 11, 2017 notice of the Zoning Adjustment Board's scheduled January 26, 2017 Public Hearing on the above-referenced proposed redevelopment project ("Proposed Project"), John Sloan, myself and any other interested persons would like to meet with you and Mr. Bereket regarding the Proposed Project, at your earliest convenience, as you have offered. I attach a list of questions we submitted in early October 2016. At that time it was my understanding that Mr. Bereket informed Mr. Sloan that you would respond to these questions, which have not yet been addressed. Regards, Bob Campbell


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

Subject: FW: Review for Permit #ZP2016-0101

From: Judi Stampss [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 8:50 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) <[email protected]> Cc: John Sloan <[email protected]> Subject: Review for Permit #ZP2016‐0101

Dear ZAB Several months ago, residents of the neighborhood near 1717 University Ave went over the set of plans the developers have submitted for this project. We identified a number of questions with respect to the proposed project. These included questions about 1) apparent inconsistencies in the floorplans within the plans themselves, 2) potential unacknowledged changes in zoning for certain portions of the property from residential to mixed-used, 3) the number and type of variances being requested by the developer, 4) inconsistencies with respect to the number of parking places provided, and so on. Since we are not experts in this area, we then sent a letter to the Planning Department requesting a meeting with someone from the Planning Department who could meet with our representatives and answer the questions that required someone with expertise in the current planning codes. However, to date we have received no response to that letter. We respectfully request that the Project Review for 1717 University that is currently scheduled for January 26th be postponed until after the Planning Department is able to schedule a meeting with our representatives to answer our questions. We also ask that this rescheduling occur soon, since the deadline for submission to letters to the ZAB for items to be discussed at this meeting is next Wednesday (Jan 18th). Otherwise the ZAB meeting on Jan 26th is likely to be overwhelmed with written and oral concerns from the neighbors of 1717 University. They will not only be re-asking the questions listed in our original letter, but some of them are likely to be angered at the lack of response from our civil servants in the Planning Dept when we asked them for informed answers to those questions. yours Judy Stamps 1634 Berkeley Way


of 36

1

Bereket, Immanuel

From: Steven Ross <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 5:01 PMTo: [email protected]: Bereket, ImmanuelSubject: 1717 University Avenue

Hi Robert, Thanks for calling me regarding the 1717 University Avenue project. Below is a link the project web page. I noticed that the web page does not have the most recent set of plans that were resubmitted in November 2016. Maybe Manny can have those uploaded soon. The project looks pretty much the same as the July 20th plans that are on the website. http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Zoning_Adjustment_Board/1717_UNIVERSITY.aspx Here’s a link to the ZAB webpage where the staff report will be posted around July 20th, when the staff report and agenda packet is finalized for distribution: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/zoningadjustmentboard/ I’m happy to me with you and other neighbors before July 20th to discuss the project. However, I think the staff report will address many questions. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Steve Steven Ross | Associate/Senior Environmental Planner LSA | 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 – – – – – – – – – – – 510-236-6810 Tel Website


of 36

1

Moultrie-Daye, Kevin

From: Eddy Francisco <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:03 PM

To: Burns, Anne M

Subject: 1717 University Ave proposal

Hello,

I live at 1925 McGee Ave. My backyard will face the proposed development at 1717 University. We have been

dealing with unprecedented growth in Berkeley. Our neighborhoods are changing. The infrastructure is

overwhelmed. There are homeless people wandering our neighborhood, sleeping in Ohlone park. Parking has

been increasingly difficult as businesses on University around the corner do not have parking. We dealt with

Trader Joes and the influx of traffic that has brought. This development, at 1717 University, is proposing 14

parking spaces for its 28 units. Additionally, they are proposing mechanical lifts to provide the parking. Why

are there density exceptions for this project? Why are you even considering 14 parking spaces for 28 1,2 and 3

bedroom apartments? Our neighborhood has been transformed with no consideration for the homeowners

who have lived here and paid their taxes for years. I get that the administration wants growth for tax revenue,

but we the people of this neighborhood want a certain quality of life that overcrowding does not afford. There

is a major apartment building complex at the foot of University and many more proposed in Berkeley. I don’t

see new open space or parks projects. Our space is being overwhelmed by developers and again, this one

wants to over populate our neighborhood. The developers, planners etc... will move on , we will be here and

we are saying consider us.

As a resident and tax payer of Berkeley, I expect consideration , as do my neighbors. As for allowing

mechanical lifts to supply parking, what about the noise they generate for those who work early , arrive late. I

don’t want that additional noise nor do my neighbors.

Please consider where we are coming from and expect that consideration from the developers you allow to

build in this town.

Thank you,

Eddy

Eddy Francisco

[email protected]

Desk (510)450-5112

Cell (510)219-8743

NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may

contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or his or her

representative, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is

prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please immediately contact the sender by reply

email and destroy all copies of the original message and attachments.


of 36

attachment 4 drc 02-16-2017 - city of berkeley

Documents