1201 san pablo avenue/ 1101 harrison...

� � � � � ��

� � � � � � � ��

� � � � ��

� � � � � � � � � � � ��

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]

FOR BOARD ACTION

APRIL 6, 2006

1201 San Pablo Avenue/ 1101 Harrison Street Use Permit #05-10000029 to construct a 29,665 square foot mixed-use building containing 30 residential units (6 Inclusionary), up to 5 ground floor commercial units and 38 parking spaces (C-W, Commercial West Berkeley, GPowell)

I. Application Basics

A. Zoning Permits Required: • Use Permit under Sections 23E.64.030 and 23E.64.050.B.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to

construct a mixed-use building greater with than 20,000 square feet gross floor area.

B. Concessions requested to comply with the State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code §65915): • To allow a building of more than four stories (five stories are proposed); and • To provide more market units facing west, higher average floor area for the market-rate

units and an uneven distribution of the Inclusionary units within the building. C. CEQA Determination: The project is exempt from the provisions of the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15332, In-Fill Development. D. Parties Involved:

• Applicant Jim Hart, 1337 Josephine Street, Berkeley CA 94703

1201 SAN PABLO AVENUE/ 1101 HARRISON STREET ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD of 14 April 6, 2006

File: G:\Projects by Address\San Pablo\1201-05\05-10000029\staff reports, PHN F&C\ZAB Staff Report 04-06-06.doc

Figure 1: Vicinity Map



Figure 2: Site Plan



Table 1: Land Use Information Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation

Subject Property Vacant Parcel C-W Avenue Commercial

North Auto-related Commercial C-W Avenue Commercial

South 14-unit Residential Building C-W Avenue Commercial

East Residential R-2 Low-Medium Density Residential

Surrounding Properties

West Auto-oriented Food Service C-W Avenue Commercial

Table 2: Special Characteristics

Characteristic Explanation Alcohol Sales/Service Specific uses are not proposed at this time.

Creek Buffer Codornicis Creek is located in a culvert approximately 230’ north of the site.

CGS Hazards: Liquefaction

While site is within a potential liquefaction zone, the Geotechnical Engineering Study concluded that the site contains soils that will not liquefy. The March 2005 Geotechnical Engineering Study and the June 2005 Geotechnical Peer review is on file in the Permit Service Center.

Density Bonus The Project would provide 20% of the total units as affordable to qualifying households at up to 120% AMI. The applicant has declined the density bonus of 15%, but has requested concessions. See Section IV for details.

Environmental Management Area

The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared for this project found that no recognized environmental conditions nor areas of business environmental risk were present and concluded that no further investigation or assessment was warranted. Nonetheless, to address potential issues relating to the quality of the soil, the standard conditions of approval for infill development will apply to this project. The October 2004 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment is on file in the Permit Service Center.

Flood Zone Site is not located in an area of special flood hazard (>100Yr reoccurrence).

Historic Resources

There are no locally designated historic resources within a 1-block radius.

Node The West Berkeley Plan designates this area as the Gilman/San Pablo Node.

Noise

The site is within an area that has existing noise levels that require special design considerations for residential uses to comply with the levels established by the City’s General Plan. To address issues relating to noise, the standard conditions of approval for infill development will apply to this project. The April 2005 Noise Study is on file in the Permit Service Center.

Oak Trees No Coast Live Oak Trees were observed during a site visit.

Redevelopment Area

Site is not located in the City’s Redevelopment District.

RPP The nearest Residential Preferred Parking neighborhood (North Berkeley Neighborhood) is over 1 mile to the southeast.

Traffic

While the proposed project would increase traffic and parking demand to the area, the traffic study prepared by Dowling Associates found that the 426 vehicle trips per day generated by the project would not create an unacceptable increase to the existing or projected future levels of service at the San Pablo/Gilman or San Pablo/Harrison intersections. The April 2005 Traffic and Parking Study is on file in the Permit Service Center

Transit AC Transit: G & Z Transbay, 9, 52, 52L, 72, 72R and 72M service the site. BART: The North Berkeley station is within 1 mile of the site. AMTRAK: The West Berkeley station is within 1 mile of the site

URM Un-reinforced Masonry Buildings: Site is vacant



Table 3: Development Standards

Standard BMC Section 23E.64.070 & .080 Existing Proposed Permitted/ Required Lot Area 13,000 13,000 N/A Residential Floor Area - Total 26,197 - 1st floor 0

0

- 2nd floor 8,374 - 3rd floor 8,150 - 4th floor 7,926

No Limit

- 5th floor

N/A

1,747 0 Non-Residential Floor Area - Total N/A 3,468 No Limit Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) - Total N/A 29,665 39,000 Floor Area Ratio N/A 2.28 3

Total 30 1-Bedroom 6 2-Bedroom

N/A 24

N/A Dwelling Units

Affordable - (up to 120% AMI) N/A 6 6 Average N/A 48’-6” 50’ Building

Height Stories N/A 5 4 Harrison Street (Front) 3’-8’ 0 Rear (South Property Line) 0 0 San Pablo Avenue (Street Side) 0-2’ 0 Interior Side (East Property Line) - 1st floor 5’ - 2nd floor 12’ - 3rd floor 12’-16’ - 4th floor 12'-20’

Building Setbacks

- 5th floor

N/A

66’

5’

Lot Coverage (sq. ft.) 0 12,044 13,000 % 0.00% 92.65% 100.00% Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) 1,200 1,200 - East-facing Decks 480 - Interior Courtyard 520 - West-facing Decks

N/A

200 Automobile - Total 38 38 - Dwellings 30 30 - Non-residential 8 8

Parking

Bicycle

N/A

12 2



Table 4: Project Chronology

Date Action March 4, 2005 Application submitted

April 1, 2005 Deemed Incomplete

May 4, 2005 Deemed Complete

August 15, 2005 Design Review Committee: Preliminary Design Review

October 20, 2005 Design Review Committee: Preliminary Design Review

November 17, 2005 Design Review Committee: Preliminary Design Review

December 15, 2005 Design Review Committee: Preliminary Design Review

January 19, 2006 Design Review Committee: Preliminary Design Review - Recommendation

March 23, 2006 Zoning Adjustments Board: Public Hearing Notice

April 6, 2006 Zoning Adjustments Board: Hearing

II. Project Setting

A. Neighborhood/Area Description:

The development pattern surrounding the project site is mixed, urbanized, and consists of a wide range of commercial and residential uses. The predominate building pattern along San Pablo Avenue and in the immediate vicinity is one to two story buildings with varied lot coverage. The West Berkeley Plan designated the area along San Pablo from Harrison to Camelia as part of the Gilman/San Pablo Node. Since the adoption of the West Berkeley Plan into the Zoning Ordinance in 1998, 1201 San Pablo represents only the second mixed-use housing project proposed in a Node1. The four other mixed-use developments along San Pablo Avenue have occurred outside of a node, and range in size from three to five stories. The closest and currently under construction is at 1406 San Pablo Avenue, a 3-story, mixed-use project. The R-2 District abutting the site to the east along Harrison Street, includes one and two story buildings with one to three units, with front yard setbacks that range from nine to 15-feet; along Kains Street, the District includes two story buildings with one to two units, with rear yard setbacks that range from 30 to 50 feet.

B. Site Conditions: This parcel is currently vacant. Historically the parcel was used for Christmas tree sales.

1 The first was an affordable housing project by Affordable Housing Associates at 1001 Ashby Avenue (5-stories, 55 units) approved in 2004.



III. Project Description

The applicant proposes to construct a 5-story, 29,665 square foot building with 30 units (6 Inclusionary), up to 5 commercial spaces along San Pablo Avenue and 38 parking spaces accessed from Harrison Street. The building setback from the residential properties to the east increases with each floor from 5-feet at grade to as much as 20-feet for the fourth floor. The residential units would be accessed via an open-air courtyard. 12 of the east-facing units would include private usable open space. Five of the west-facing units would also include private usable open space. The project would have seven main elements: 1) a 5-foot by 130-foot rear yard adjacent to the eastern property line to provide a 650 square foot

landscaped yard between the proposed building and the residences to the east; 2) Ground-level parking garage for 38 parking spaces (34 lift spaces) located near the eastern property

line; 3) 3,468 square feet of commercial floor area along San Pablo Avenue, to be divided into as many as

5 separate tenant spaces; 4) Four panels for street art installations at the sidewalk along San Pablo Avenue; 5) A ±20-foot by ±103-foot interior courtyard divides the residential portions of the project and

provides pedestrian and solar access to the dwelling units and approximately 520 square feet of usable open space;

6) To the east of the courtyard are three-stories and 15 units of housing (12 with private balconies), with an average height of 42’ above grade;

7) To the west of the courtyard are four-stories and 15 units of housing facing west (5 with private balconies), with an average height of 48’-6’’ above grade.

The project would provide 20% of the dwelling units (6) as Inclusionary units, subject to Section 23C.12.070.A of the Zoning Ordinance2. Per State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Section 65915), a condominium project that reserves 20% of the units for moderate income households is entitled to two incentives or concessions plus a density bonus of 15%. In this case, the applicant has declined the density bonus, but has requested concessions for a fifth floor to increase the floor area of 5 west-facing units on the fourth floor and to alter the distribution and size of the Inclusionary units.

Table 5: Dwelling Characteristics

Unit Type 1 Bed/ 1 Bath 2 Bed/ 1 Bath 2 Bed/ 2 Bath Total Units Market Rate Average Sq Ft: 890

5 14 5 24

Affordable @ up to120% AMI Average Sq Ft: 803

1 5 0 6

Total Units 6 19 5 30

2 This project was deemed complete on May 4, 2005. At that time, Section 23C.12.070.A of the Zoning Ordinance required that Inclusionary Units in ownership projects shall be sold as set forth below:

1. Inclusionary Units in ownership projects shall be sold at a price that is affordable to an appropriate-sized Household whose income is no more than 80 percent of the area median income reported for the Oakland PMSA for households of that size, unless the cost of development of the unit is greater than the affordable sales price, which can increase the sale price to as much as 120 percent of the area median income.

This section of the Zoning Ordinance was repealed on February 19, 2006. However, as an affordable housing project, the Zoning Ordinance in effect on the date of completion shall apply to this project.



Figure 3: Floor Plan - Market and Inclusionary units Second Floor

Prim

ary

expo

sure

Uni

t #

#/ B

ed

#/ B

aths

Priv

ate

UO

S?

Mar

ket

Incl

us.

East 1 1 1 No 717 East 2 2 1 Yes 864 East 3 2 1 Yes 864 East 4 2 1 Yes 864 East 5 1 1 Yes 859 West 6 2 1 No 850 West 7 2 1 No 839 West 8 2 1 No 839 West 9 2 1 No 839

Har

riso

n St

reet

West 10 2 1 No 839 San Pablo Avenue North

Third Floor

Prim

ary

expo

sure

Uni

t #

#/ B

ed

#/ B

aths

Priv

ate

UO

S?

Mar

ket

Incl

us.

East 11 1 1 No 717 East 12 2 1 Yes 808 East 13 2 1 Yes 808 East 14 2 1 Yes 808 East 15 1 1 Yes 803 West 16 2 1 No 850 West 17 2 1 No 839 West 18 2 1 No 839 West 19 2 1 No 839

Har

riso

n St

reet

West 20 2 1 No 839 San Pablo Avenue North

Fourth and Fifth Floor

Prim

ary

expo

sure

Uni

t #

#/ B

ed

#/ B

aths

Priv

ate

UO

S?

Mar

ket

Incl

us.

East 21 1 1 No 717 East 22 2 1 Yes 752 East 23 2 1 Yes 752 East 24 2 1 Yes 752 East 25 1 1 Yes 747 West 26 2 2 Yes 1,177 West 27 2 2 Yes 1,194 West 28 2 2 Yes 1,194 West 29 2 2 Yes 1,194

Har

riso

n St

reet

West 30 2 2 Yes 1,194 San Pablo Avenue North



IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns:

After submitting the application to the City in March 2005, the applicant provided drawings, a project statement and an invitation to a neighborhood meeting to be held on March 19, to the occupants of residential and commercial properties on Harrison Street from Tenth Street to Stannage Avenue on Tenth Street, San Pablo Avenue, Kains Avenue, and Stannage Avenue, from Gilman Street to the Berkeley/Albany border. The applicant presented the project to 47 area residents/owners. The primary concerns expressed at this meeting were the project’s scale in regards to the existing neighborhood, setback from adjacent properties, aesthetics, traffic and parking impacts, shadows, flooding/stormwater. A later meeting with area residents on May 11 was attended five owners/occupants. The primary concerns expressed at this meeting were traffic, aesthetics, density and building height. Meeting summaries from the applicant and from a representative of the neighborhood are attached (attachment 5). Between March and December 2005, the City received 22 letters regarding this project (attachment 6). The public comments during the design review stage of project review included support for development in general and in particular, for the provision of new for-sale housing in the area, while others expressed concern over the design, the number of stories, density and traffic impacts. The City received one comment letter as of the writing of the report in response to the recent public notice mailed to 142 individual addresses.

B. Committee Review: In August, October, November and December 2005, the Design Review Committee conducted meetings to review the design and to take testimony from the public. After redesigning the project, on January 19, 2006, the Design Review Committee forwarded a positive recommendation (6-Y, 0-N, 0-abstain) to the Zoning Adjustments Board with the following direction for Final Design Review: • Provide additional detail on the model of adjacent residential buildings when presented to the

ZAB. • Provide additional articulation on the San Pablo Avenue elevation for the dark slate material on

the bays. Consider modifying the downspout or overflow drain to be a more predominate element.

• Consider conventional windows instead of glass block on south elevation, if feasible. • Colors still need to be resolved at FDR. Values may be too close. • Differentiate the height of the bays and the wall behind by increasing the height of the bays one

coping height • Complete window, deck railing, and garage door details must be submitted for FDR. • Artwork needs more detail. • Although depth of retail is a concern, the Committee notes that the reason the depth was

reduced was to achieve the setback on the east property line. • Although retail-ceiling height is adequate, 1-2' of more height would be appropriate if ZAB

considered this a good reason to increase overall building height.

A summary for each Design Review Committee meeting may be found in attachment 4.



IV. Issues and Analysis

A. Key Issues:

1. Design: This project elicited significant public comment during the design review stage of project review. The viewpoints of both sides were considered by the Design Review Committee over the course of five meetings. The Design Review Committee provided the applicant with specific direction relating to needed design changes for building setback and massing, elevation design, open space design, and materials. As a result of the direction provided by the Design Review Committee, the project was redesigned to: • Increase the building setback along the eastern property line from zero to five-feet to create

a buffer to the residential neighborhood to the east; • Decrease the building height to four stories along the eastern property line; • Provide a building line transition along Harrison Street via building setbacks and a eight-

foot landscape planter; • Provide a building setback adjacent to the exit stair along the southern building edge to

break up the mass of this elevation and provide a landscape planter; • Recess the fourth floor east-facing decks to break up the views of the roofline. • Provide planters in front of the retail storefront windows and provide art panels on the

ground floor pilasters on San Pablo Avenue; • Increase courtyard area within the project to provide more sunlight to the dwellings and to

allow more landscaping; • Include an at-grade landscape planter along the eastern property line and a portion of the

southern property line to include trees, shrubs and vines, • Substituting horizontal wood members at the eastern decks, courtyard and stair railings,

garage gate, and lobby screen for Cor-Ten steel.

The building setback along the east property line was carefully considered by the Design Review Committee in several committee meetings. The Design Review Committee weighed arguments for both the original request for a zero setback and the five foot setback required by the Zoning Ordinance, and acknowledged that the increased retail depth would be welcome if the podium wall was at the property line. However, the Design Review Committee felt that the five-foot setback was preferred over deeper commercial spaces because it would provide a better buffer zone and increase the quality of plantings along that edge. In addition to the City’s adopted design review guidelines, the Design Review Committee considered many viewpoints during the design review process. The Design Review Committee provided the applicant with specific direction relating to needed design changes. Many aspects of the project were modified significantly as a result of the direction provided by the Design Review Committee leading to preliminary design review approval.

2. Inclusionary Ordinance: The project proposes to construct 30 dwelling units, of which 20% of the dwelling units (6) would be Inclusionary units. Per Section 23C.12.070, the Inclusionary Units in this project shall be sold at a price that is affordable to an appropriate-sized Household whose income is no more than 80 percent of the area median income reported for the Oakland PMSA for households of that size, unless per unit cost of development is greater than the affordable sales price.3

3 Where the per unit cost of development exceeds the allowable Inclusionary sales price, the price may be set at the cost of development as set forth in BMC Section 23C.12.070, but may not in any case exceed a price that is three times a gross household income for an appropriate-sized household of 120 percent of area median income.



3. Density Bonus: By providing 20% of the dwelling units (6) for sale to households with income at or below the 120% Area Mean Income4, this project is entitled to a density increase of 15% over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density and two concessions or incentives.

Since the City of Berkeley does not use explicit residential density standards (e.g. the number of dwellings per acre) to calculate compliance with the State’s regulation, the City employs an alternative method: • Calculate Maximum Floor Area: Staff calculates the maximum developable floor area

based on lot size and maximum number of stories allowed without a use permit. ��In this case, the lot area is 13,000 Sq Ft, max # of floors is 4: 13,000*4=52,000 Sq Ft.

• Calculate Actual Floor Area: Staff calculates that actual developable floor-area by including Zoning and Building Code factors that restrict floor area. ��In this case, the reductions for this project are:

a) No ground floor residential: 13,000 Sq Ft (proposed building type would not allow dwellings under the concrete podium 130’*100’*1 floor);

b) Setback adjacent to R-District: 1,950 Sq Ft (Zoning Ordinance requires 5-foot setback along eastern property line, 130’*5’*3 floors); and

c) Required separation between operable windows ‘protected openings’: 3,900 Sq Ft (Building code requires 10-foot separation between windows within the courtyard, 130’*10’*3 floors).

The adjustments reduce the maximum floor area (52,000), by 18,850 (reductions of 13,000+1,950+3,900) to an actual floor are of 33,150 Sq Ft.

• Determine # of Base Units: The project’s number of “base-units” (or base density) is derived by dividing the actual floor area by the average unit size from the proposed. ��In this case, the average unit size from the proposed project is 873 Sq Ft (26,197/30),

the actual developable floor area is 33,150: 33,150/873=385. • Determine # of Bonus Units: The required number of density bonus units is found by

multiplying the number of base-units by a value (that depends on the percentage of affordable units and their level of affordability offered) that ranges from 15 to 35%, as required by State law. ��In this case, the base is 38 and the bonus allowed by State Law is 15% (bonus allowed

for moderate-income) would allow six5 additional units for a density bonus total of 44 units.

As mentioned in the project description, the applicant has declined the density bonus and instead has only requested two concessions: 1) to the maximum number of stories allowed and (2) to alter the distribution of the Inclusionary units. In either case, a Variance or granting a concession would be required. The applicant has pursued the concessions, as the project does not present circumstances to grant a variance6.

4 For-sale projects with dwelling units affordable up to 120% AMI level are entitled to a density bonus. 5 Per 65915 (g)(2), ‘All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number.’ 6 Per Zoning Ordinance Section 23B.44.030, the Board may grant a Variance if it makes all of the following findings: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same District; 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the subject property's owner; 3. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or the construction of a building, structure or addition thereof, to be approved will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood; and that the granting of the Variance will promote the municipal health, welfare and safety and benefit the City as a whole.



According to the applicant, while the density bonus would provide additional income to offset the cost of the Inclusionary units, the larger project that would result by the addition of 14 units to this site would not be as desirable to build or live in. Instead, the applicant believes that allowing additional floor area for a bedroom and a bath for five fourth floor units via a fifth floor, and allowing the mix and location of units shown in Figure 37, would provide a financially feasible project, provide a better project to build and live in, while providing the required Inclusionary units. It is important to note that while the Inclusionary units would not match the market rate units for size or location, the project would provide proportionate access to private open space, number of bedrooms and design in terms of appearance, materials and finish quality for both the market-rate and Inclusionary units. The applicant is not required by State Law to prove that the concessions are required to provide for affordable housing costs. Rather, per California Government Code §65915(d)(1), the City must grant the concessions requested unless it makes a finding, based on substantial evidence, that the concession is not required to provide for affordable housing costs; or that a concession would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Thus, the City has not reviewed a financial pro-forma prepared by the applicant. As the applicant has developed many other mixed-use projects, and has requested the concessions to present what he believes will be a financially sound project, staff recommends that in this case, review of a financial pro-forma is not necessary to grant the concessions.

4. CEQA: The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15332, In-Fill Development because the project: is located in an urbanized area; is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and zoning regulations; will not impact habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; will not result in any significant effect to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and is adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

B. General and Area Plan Consistency:

1. General Plan Policy Analysis: The 2002 General Plan contains several policies applicable to

the project, including the following: • Policy LU-3–Infill Development: Encourage infill development that is architecturally and

environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of sustainable planning and construction, and is compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale.

Staff Analysis: Provides infill development on an underutilized parcel within a building that has been refined and recommended by the Design Review Committee.

7 Per Zoning Ordinance Section 23C.12.040.D, the “Inclusionary Units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project, be of the same size and contain, on average, the same number of bedrooms as the non-Inclusionary Units in the project; and be comparable with the design or use of non-Inclusionary units in terms of appearance, materials and finish quality”. The proposed unit mix and location shown in Figure 3 would represent more market-rate units facing west, higher average floor area for the market-rate units, and an uneven distribution per floor of the Inclusionary units. While the applicant has requested this as a concession, the Inclusionary units would be comparable with the design or use of market-rate units in terms of appearance, materials and finish quality.



• Policy LU-23–Transit-Oriented Development: Encourage and maintain zoning that allows greater commercial and residential density and reduced residential parking requirements in areas with above-average transit service such as Downtown Berkeley.

Staff Analysis: The project is consistent with this policy in that it is a high-density development in a location well served by transit.

• Policy LU-27–Avenue Commercial Areas, Action A: Require ground-floor commercial

uses to be oriented to the street and sidewalks to encourage a vital and appealing pedestrian experience.

Staff Analysis: The project’s commercial space abuts the sidewalk rather than parking, has generous floor to ceiling heights (11’ proposed) and the driveway is located on Harrison Street to minimize conflicts with pedestrians along San Pablo.

• Policy LU-33–West Berkeley Plan: Implement the West Berkeley Plan and take actions

that will achieve the three purposes of the Plan: -Maintain the full range of land uses and economic activities including residences, manufacturing, services, retailing, and other activities in West Berkeley. -Maintain the ethnic and economic diversity of West Berkeley's resident population. -Maintain and improve the quality of urban life, environmental quality, public and private service availability, transit and transportation, and aesthetic and physical qualities for West Berkeley residents and workers.

Staff Analysis: Further West Berkeley Plan analysis is provided below. The project is consistent with Policy LU-33 in that it provides 6 Inclusionary units, thereby helping to reduce market pressures on West Berkeley’s limited housing stock and corresponding impacts on diversity.

• Policy UD-32–Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar

access and minimize detrimental shadows.

Staff Analysis: The project involves the construction of a 4 to 5-story building on a currently vacant parcel. Thus it will create new shadows on neighboring properties. However, as shown on Sheet A8.1 of the attached plan set, shadow impacts to residential properties primarily occur in the afternoon during the summer and winter solstice. For most of the day, the shadows would be cast on the public right-of-way or commercial properties.

• Policy H-19–Regional Housing Needs: Encourage housing production adequate to meet

the housing production goals established by ABAG’s Regional Housing Needs Determination for Berkeley.

Staff Analysis: Provides 6 below-market rate units in a portion of the City that has not had any Inclusionary units approved or constructed since July 1999.

2. West Berkeley Plan: The Plan states that “San Pablo Avenue should have a more urban(e) look

and feel, with new mixed-use buildings anchoring key commercial corners” (p. 3). Unlike the University Avenue Strategic Plan, the West Berkeley Plan does not suggest maximum building heights for San Pablo Avenue that differ from the existing zoning standards. While the Plan identifies nodes where development should be more pedestrian-oriented and intense, it does not



specify a different maximum building height for the nodes than for other locations on San Pablo. Policy 1.8 of the Plan’s Physical Form Element (p. 144) says, “Develop incentives to encourage new construction to be 2-4 stories in height along these [commercial] corridors, especially at nodes.

The project also furthers several other policies and goals of the West Berkeley Plan. Physical Form Policy 4.2 says, “Developments in these locations [where higher-intensity development abuts lower-scale buildings] should use tools such as increased building setbacks or upper story stepbacks, landscaping, and other means to reduce the impacts of differences in scale, style, and site plan” (p. 146). Given the project’s upper-story stepbacks on the east side (12 to 20-feet for floors 2-4, 66-feet for the fifth floor), the setback along the Harrison Street frontage (3 to 8-feet), and the landscaping treatment in the yard along the eastern property line (deciduous trees, vines) and the smaller landscape planter along the southern property line, staff believes the project appropriately implements the West Berkeley Plan’s vision for higher density residential development along San Pablo Avenue.

VI. Recommendation

Because of the project’s consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, and minimal impact on surrounding properties, Staff recommends that the Zoning Adjustments Board:

A. APPROVE Use Permit 05-10000029 pursuant to Section 23B.32.040 and subject to the attached

Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1). Attachments: 1. Findings and Conditions 2. Project Plans, Received March 14, 2006 3. Public Hearing Notice 4. Design Review Committee Meeting Summaries 5. Public Outreach Summaries 6. Correspondence

Staff Planner: Greg Powell, [email protected], (510) 981-7414

1201 san pablo avenue/ 1101 harrison...

Documents