• Summary
• Documents and Images
• Perspective: Linda Maio, Councilmember District 1
• Perspective: Beth Bernstein
• Perspective: Jim Hart, Developer

Summary

On April 6, the Zoning Adjustments Board held a public hearing and approved a permit to construct a 29,665 square foot mixed-use building at the corner of San Pablo and Harrison. The building will be five stories, average 48.5 feet high, and will contain 30 residential units and up to 5 commercial units. The city-wide District maximum height standard is 50 feet.

An appeal has been filed by a neighborhood group with objections to the size of the building and concerns about the impact on density, traffic and parking issues.

A hearing of their appeal is not automatic; the Berkeley City Council must first grant the hearing. The decision whether or not to grant the hearing will probably be made on July 18. If not granted, the developer may proceed with the project without a further hearing by City Council.

Documents

• North (Harrison) elevation and West (San Pablo) elevation File size: 3.4MB
• South and East elevations File size: 4.7MB
• Cross section and longitudinal section File size: 5.6MB
• Letter of appeal to the City File size: 0.5MB
• ZAB Staff Report for Board Action File size: 0.6MB
• Findings and Conditions (Attachment 1 to the staff report) File size: 0.07MB
• Flier announcing this issue to distribute to your neighbors File size: 0.3MB

Linda Maio

Councilmember, District 1

The City Council will be discussing the 1100 Harrison project on July 18th and will have several options to act at that meeting:

1. Uphold the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) approval of the project.
2. Decide to hold a public hearing, which can result in changes to the project or complete denial.
3. Send the project back to the ZAB with specific modification requests.

Council has rarely chosen option #2 purely to deny the project.

I'd like to make several points for those interested in this project and new developments in general. The City's policy, since the time of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO) in the seventies, has been to protect our neighborhoods by placing major development on our major corridors and in the downtown--not in our neighborhoods. That is why we do not see large apartment complexes, like those built in the sixties, being built in our neighborhoods. Instead, they are directed, via our zoning, to our major corridors.

However, development on major corridors raises a number of issues. These are: the interface of these buildings with the neighborhoods directly abutting them, their quality and attractiveness, and taking care to study and mitigate any detriment they may cause. A few other points are important to consider.

The City has long had an inclusionary zoning ordinance, which means we require that 20% of new apartments being built to be set aside for lower income families. That necessarily means that the developer has to shift part of the profit to the other segments of the project, to enable the inclusionary units to be rented or sold at a lower cost. In addition, a ruling by the City Attorney, based on constitutional law, states that the City's requirements cannot make it so costly that we render the project financially infeasible. Because we require "inclusionary" units, we are often placed in the position of having to grant certain "concessions" to the developer to ensure the project is financially feasible. These often take the form of greater density (more units overall) less open space or parking, to name a few. In addition to the "concessions" matter, the State Legislature has directed that cities must grant up to a 35% "density bonus" for projects providing affordable housing. A density bonus means just that: even more units. Application of the State Density Bonus can result in very large, bulky buildings and limits, severely, our discretion in shaping projects and addressing the issues I raised above: neighborliness, attractiveness, adequate parking and open space, etc.

The State Density Bonus was initiated by the Legislature because many California cities were not permitting the development of affordable housing. Berkeley is not one of these. We have long had a commitment, policies, and an active program to build affordable housing. Because of our track record in affordable housing, our Assembly member, Loni Hancock, is trying to get Berkeley and cities like it, excluded from the Density Bonus law. However, until she is successful, we are bound to comply with State law, making it difficult for us to appropriately shape a project.

I know from my neighborhood meetings that people are concerned with traffic and feel that new development has brought more people and therefore more traffic. We do know a few things that help put new development in context. For one, Berkeley's population has remained fairly stable over the past few decades. Our problem is not more people but traffic volume, gridlock, and speeding-more cars. More people are commuting into Berkeley for jobs than prior decades. Housing prices have skyrocketed so much that our own children cannot afford to live in the town where they grew up. Additional housing, particularly affordable housing that is targeted toward our workforce (teachers, librarians, administrative personnel, etc.) is important. More housing for those who work in Berkeley means fewer commute trips, less traffic, and residents whose ties are strengthened to Berkeley because they both live and work here. Our job is to make sure that what is built is an asset to our community and neighborhoods, and not a liability.

The 30-unit project at the corner of San Pablo and Harrison, on the site of a vacant lot, can make an important contribution. Having acknowledged that contribution, it is incumbent upon the Council to ensure that 1100 Harrison also makes an important contribution to its neighbors and neighborhood, to the streetscape, and to the city as a whole.

Councilmember Linda Maio

Beth Bernstein

I am part of a neighborhood in Berkeley that has been valiantly fighting the proposed development of an unprecedentedly-large mixed use building in our area. The proposed site is on the corner of Harrison Street and San Pablo Avenue in North Berkeley. The building proposes 30 condominiums over 5 retail spaces. The building goes over the 40 ft height zoning variance, to average over 50' in height. This is 1-2 stories higher than any similar building within several miles of the site. The building was approved in April 2006 by Berkeley's Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB), which we have appealed to the City Council. City Council is scheduled to vote on our appeal at their July 18th meeting. Besides our concern over the impact this will have on our neighborhood, we're concerned about the precedent this will set for development on San Pablo Avenue.

Some salient points from the neighborhood's perspective:

1. We're a close-knit neighborhood of intelligent, passionate, accomplished middle-class people. We have been working our hardest to climb a steep learning curve, move through proper channels of City government and ask to have a building that won't overwhelm our neighborhood with density, traffic and parking issues. Even Bob Allen said (I'm paraphrasing from memory), "I think this project doesn't work for this site, the lot is too shallow to support a project this size, and this will be disruptive to the neighborhood." Then Mr. Allen made a motion to approve the project at ZAB. We have attended meeting after meeting and written countless letters to City representatives without having any of our feedback addressed. Jim Hart, the Berkeley developer, has been utterly non-responsive to our attempts to have any input on the project. He has only met with us when required (or strongly urged) to do so. He came to the first meeting with the neighborhood (in March 2005) with completed plans that had already been filed with the City. Our only victory was a 5' setback on the East property line (the original plan showed 0' setback on all property lines).
2. Even City Planners have remarked how surprised they are at the level of contentiousness surrounding this project. At the ZAB hearing, 34 neighbors came to speak against it. Three people spoke in favor, none of whom is a disinterested party, one being John Norheim, the real estate agent who sold the lot to the developer.
3. ZAB gave approval in violation of State statutes, City zoning codes and City policy.
4. This project took five preliminary Design Reviews to get passed to ZAB. Members of both ZAB and Design Review remarked repeatedly (on public record) how badly-designed and poorly conceived this project is for this site AND they passed it anyway.
5. The proposed project provides 38 parking spaces, slightly more than the City's requirement for parking spaces. However, to do so, the project proposes using Claus car lifts. Given that these are time consuming to use (if in a hurry), residents may park on the street. Many of the 30 condominiums will have more than one car associated with it. At certain times of day, there's already little or no available street parking. The City has provided no plan on how to mitigate parking issues.
6. The retail space is shallow with somewhat low ceilings making it unlikely to attract desirable long-term vendors. We don't need need another tanning salon, nail salon or cell phone storefront on this stretch of San Pablo. The design should be altered to provide desirable retail spaces.
7. The proposed building is unprecendently large for this neighborhood. Most of the buildings on San Pablo are 1-2 stories. This building's average height is over 50' tall. A similar building is currently under construction at 1406 San Pablo but its only 3 stories tall. Its massive height will block access to sunlight and air for the residents that border this building on 3 sides. Rather than integrate itself into the neighborhood, this building is so incongruously large that it will be even more conspicuous. The site sits right at the northern entrance to Berkeley on San Pablo Avenue. We think this building says "Welcome to Emeryville." It sets a dangerous precedent for development on San Pablo Avenue. The West Berkeley plan is outdated, the Draft San Pablo Guidelines have not been ratified. The City needs to adopt a plan for San Pablo Avenue before allowing such a large development to go in.

Summary of the points covered in our appeal:

1. The ZAB acted in violation of the State Density Bonus statute when it awarded concessions for a fifth story and unequal inclusionary units because the developer did not seek a density bonus, was not an applicant for a density bonus, and declined a density bonus for the project. When an applicant does not 'seek a density bonus' the local government does not have the authority to grant concessions which require variances. The City could argue that they have given concessions to at least one other building when no density bonus was given but one violation of a state law does not justify a second, third or fourth violation of the same provision.
2. Even if the concessions granted to the proposed project were in conformance with the state law, the total absence of financial data relating to the concessions, incentives and development standards, as required by subsection 65915 (f), makes the ZAB approval of the project not in conformance with the state law. The Staff Report for Board Action April 6, 2006 is clear that there was no financial data provided by the developer to support the need for the concessions.
3. In its approval of 1201 San Pablo/1100 Harrison with the inequities in the inclusionary units in contrast to market units, the ZAB is in direct violation of the City of Berkeley's inclusionary ordinance and rational City policy. The approval should not have been allowed, and the Council should examine alternatives. The developer has designated the best, largest units as the market rate units, and designated less desirable units as the inclusionary units. Granting this concession tells developers that it is acceptable to use the less profitable units to fulfill inclusionary unit requirements, creating two classes of units within a project rather than having no distinction between the two types of units.
4. The proposed project does not conform to current setbacks required under the City of Berkeley Zoning Code. The proposed project only provides a five foot (5 ft) rear setback (along the East property line that abuts R2 residential property on Kains). It should also be noted that the project address has never been clearly defined. The Notice of Decision currently has both addresses (1100 Harrison St. and 1201 San Pablo). Legally, the project may only have one address. The building does not provide the required setbacks in either interpretation of the address. The applicant has not asked for a setback variance or concession, and there is no mention of this in the Staff Report or Notice of Decision. This project should not be granted a setback concession for something that has not been asked for or ruled upon by the Zoning Adjustments Board and in violation of the zoning code.
5. The traffic report did not adequately study nor address the real impacts this project will have on the adjacent residential neighborhood. The report was made before the traffic flow on Marin Avenue was changed and greatly underestimated the number of cars that would be associated with the building. There is currently no effective plan to direct traffic away from the residential neighborhood. We are already besieged with drivers who use Kains, Stannage and Cornell as a short-cut to either get to Marin Avenue or to avoid the Gilman-san Pablo intersection.

The 1201 San Pablo/1100 Harrison Street project violates numerous city codes and state laws. For these reasons, we strongly urge the City Council to set the appeal public hearing on this project to address these blatant breaches of zoning law and allow the neighborhood's voices to be adequately heard.

Jim Hart

Developer

Jim Hart has declined an invitation to contribute to this page at this time.

Top