Z O N I N G A DJUSTMENTS B O A R D

Transcription

1 Z O N I N G A DJUSTMENTS B O A R D S t a f f R e p o r t FOR BOARD ACTION MARCH 8, San Pablo Avenue Use Permit #ZP , to demolish two existing 1-story buildings at build a 5-story mixed-use building with 48 dwelling units, 3 live/work units, 1 approximately 800 square-foot quick-serve restaurant, and 53 parking spaces at the ground floor. I. Background A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: AC Avenue Commercial Zoning: C-W West Berkeley Commercial B. Zoning Permits Required: Use Permit, under BMC Section 23C A, to demolish two existing nonresidential buildings; Use Permit, under BMC Section 23E A, to construct a mixed use development in the C-W Zoning District over 20,000 square feet; Use Permit, under BMC Section 23E A, to construct 48 new dwelling units in the C-W Zoning District; Use Permit, under BMC Section 23E B, for the construction of new floor area that exceeds 5,000 square feet in the C-W Zoning District; Administrative Use Permit, under BMC Section 23E A, to construct fewer than 9 new live/work units; Administrative Use Permit, under BMC Section 23E , to allow mechanical penthouses, elevator equipment rooms, and other architectural elements to exceed the height limit; Administrative Use Permit, Under BMC Section 23E J to designate up to 10% of the required automobile parking required for a use for bicycle parking; and Zoning Certificate, under BMC Section 23E to establish a quick service restaurant under 1,500 square feet. C. Waivers/Modifications under Government Code Section : Waiver/modification to exceed the height/story limit of 50 /4 stories and propose 59 6 /5 stories Center Street, Second Floor, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us

2 March 8, 2018 Page 2 of 18 D. CEQA Determination: An Initial Study- Negative Declaration (IS-ND) was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, and circulated for public review from January 17, 2018 to February 16, See Section V.A below. The IS-MND, and all related analysis, are available on the City s website link that is provided below. E. Parties Involved: Applicant David Trachtenberg, Trachtenberg Architects, 2421 Fourth Street, Berkeley Property Owner PRATO Development, LLC, 1630 Oakland Road, Suite A215, San Jose F. Application Materials, Staff Reports, and Correspondence: rd/1740_san_pablo_avenue.aspx

3 March 8, 2018 Page 3 of 18 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Project Site North

4 March 8, 2018 Page 4 of 18 Figure 2: Zoning Map Project Site North

5 March 8, 2018 Page 5 of 18 Figure 3: Site Plan North

6 March 8, 2018 Page 6 of 18 Table 1: Land Use Information Location Subject Property Surrounding Properties North South East Existing Use Service stations (currently vacant) Multiple-family residential building with 13 apartments and garage Mixed-use (ground-floor retail, with residential units above) Commercial at the corner, 3- and 4- unit residential buildings beyond, and Berkeley Adult School to the northeast Zoning District C-W West Single-family residential R-1A General Plan Designation AC Avenue Commercial MDR Medium Density Residential Table 2: Special Characteristics Characteristic Affordable Child Care Fee for qualifying non-residential projects (Per Resolution 66,618-N.S.) Affordable Housing Fee for qualifying non-residential projects (Per Resolution 66,617-N.S.) Affordable Housing Mitigations for rental housing projects (Per BMC Section ) Applies to Project? No No Yes Explanation Alcohol Sales/Service No None proposed. Creeks (Per BMC Chapter 17.08) Coast Live Oak Trees (Per BMC ) Density Bonus (Per Gov t Code Chapter 65915) Green Building Score No No Yes Yes This fee applies to projects with more than 7,500 square feet of new non-residential gross floor area. The project includes only 3,200 square feet of nonresidential gross floor area (3, 800 square-foot live/work units and square-foot quick serve restaurant), and thus this requirement does not apply. This fee applies to projects with more than 7,500 square feet of new non-residential gross floor area. The project includes only 3,200 square feet of nonresidential gross floor area (3 800 square-foot live/work units, and square-foot quick serve restaurant), and thus this requirement does not apply. The applicant has indicated that the units in this project will be rental, and thus project is subject to the affordable housing provisions of BMC (If the applicant chooses to convert the units to condominiums in the future, the inclusionary housing requirements in BMC Chapter 23C.12 would apply.) No creek or culvert defined by BMC Chapter exists on or within 30 the site. There are no Coast Live Oak trees on or abutting the project site. The project includes 4 dwellings reserved for Very Low Income Households. Per Government Code Section 65915(f)(2), a project with 11% of the base project affordable to Very Low Income Households qualifies for a bonus of 35%, or up to 13 units. The applicant has proposed 12 density bonus units. The project is designed to attain a LEED Gold rating or higher as defined by the USGBC, or the equivalent, as determined by the Zoning Officer.

7 March 8, 2018 Page 7 of 18 Table 2: Special Characteristics Characteristic Historic Resources (Per Gov t Code or BMC Chapter 3.24) Housing Accountability Act (Per Gov t Code (j)) Percent for Art (Per BMC Chapter 23C.23) Rent Controlled Units (Per BMC Chapter 13.76) Residential Preferred Parking (Per BMC Chapter 14.72) Seismic Hazards (Per State Hazards Mapping Act) Soil/Groundwater Contamination Transit Applies to Project? No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Explanation The project would involve the demolition of two nonresidential buildings that are both greater than 40 years old. Neither the site nor the building is listed on any State or Local survey, and the site is not designated as a Landmark by the City. A Historic Resource Evaluation found that the property and building do not meet eligibility criterion for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources or as a City of Berkeley Landmark or Structure of Merit. The demolition was referred to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) on July 6, 2017, and the LPC made no comments and took no action. The project is a housing development project as defined by the Government Code, and the base project complies with applicable zoning standards. However, the proposed project includes a modification to the C- W District development standards. See Section V.C. The project is subject to the City s Public Art on Private Projects Ordinance. There are no rent controlled units on the property. The Residential Preferred Parking Program does not occur in or near this neighborhood. The project is not located within an area susceptible to liquefaction, fault-rupture, or landslide. The project site is listed on the Cortese List (an annually updated list of hazardous materials sites). Per Section of the CEQA Guidelines, a categorical exemption may not be used on sites listed on the Cortese List. The City has contracted an outside consultant to prepare an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Section V.A). The site is within approximately ¼ mile of the North Berkeley BART station and a number of AC Transit stops, including 72 line along San Pablo and the 51B line along University Avenue. There are also bus stops within four blocks of the site that provide access to other AC Transit bus routes including two Transbay routes (Route FS and G), and two all-nighter routes (Route 800 and 802), as well as a local bus (52).

8 March 8, 2018 Page 8 of 18 Table 3: Project Chronology Date Action February 3, 2017 March 3, 2017 March 28, 2017 April 12, 2017 April 26, 2017 July 6, 2017 July 19,2017 August 10, 2017 September 15, 2017 November 8, 2017 November 16, 2017 December 12, 2017 January 11, 2018 January 17, 2018 February 16, 2018 February 22, 2018 March 8, 2018 Application submitted Incomplete Letter #1 Sent Resubmittal Interdepartmental Roundtable Meeting Incomplete Letter #2 Sent Demolition referred to LPC (See Table 2 for details) Resubmittal Incomplete Letter #3 Sent Resubmittal ZAB Preview DRC Preview Resubmittal DRC forwarded a favorable recommendation to the ZAB CEQA Public Review Period began CEQA Public Review Period ended ZAB public hearing notices mailed/posted ZAB Hearing

9 March 8, 2018 Page 9 of 18 Table 4: Development Standards Standard BMC Sections 23E Existing Proposed Total Permitted/ Required Lot Area (sq. ft.) 14,204 No Change N/A Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) 5, ,073 42,612 max 2 Floor Area Ratio unknown max Dwelling Units Total 0 48 N/A Affordable min (required to obtain a Density Bonus) Live/work Units 0 4 N/A Building Height Building Setbacks Average unknown max 3 Stories max 2 Front (Delaware Approximately min Street 4 ) Rear min Left Side min 5 Right Side (San Pablo Approximately min Avenue) Lot Coverage (%) unknown 89 No max Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) N/A 3,009 2,080 min (40 per unit 6 ) Parking Automobile -Dwellings -Live/work -Café unknown min (1 per dwelling) 3 min (1 per live/work unit) 3 min (1 per 300 square feet of floor area) Bicycle min 8 II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description: The subject property is situated at the northwestern corner of the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Delaware Street. The immediate neighborhood along San Pablo Avenue is characterized by a mix of uses, including one- to two-story commercial buildings, two-story multiple dwelling-unit buildings, a four-story mixed use building and garage directly across Delaware Street to the south, and the Berkeley Adult School to the northeast. The left side property line of the subject property also marks the western edge of the C-W Zoning District, and the western abutting parcels and beyond are in the R-1A 1 Per Alameda County Assessor. 2 Maximum FAR is 3.0 (14,204 square feet x 3.0 = 42,612). 3 The applicant has requested a Density Bonus to exceed the maximum height and number of stories. 4 Per BMC 23E B, for a corner lot, the shorter of the two lot lines abutting the right-of-way shall be deemed the front for purposes of determining yard requirements In this case, the Delaware frontage of this lot is the shorter frontage, and thus it is the front. 5 Per BMC 23E B, any structure located in a non-residential District that abuts a lot in a residential District shall have a minimum side yard of 5. 6 Per BMC 23E D, dwellings and live/work units shall provide at least 40 SF of Usable Open Space. 7 Per BMC 23E J, an AUP may be issued to designate up to 10% of automobile parking required for a use for bicycle parking. In this case, the applicant proposes to designate less than 10% of required automobile parking (1 space) for bicycle parking. 8 Per BMC 23E B, bicycle parking shall be provided for new non-residential floor area at a ratio of one space per 2,000 square feet.

10 March 8, 2018 Page 10 of 18 Zoning District (Limited Two-Family Residential). The neighborhood to the west of the subject property contains one- to two-story single-family residences and duplexes. B. Site Conditions: The project site is generally level and rectangular in shape, with a small bump-out at the northwestern corner. The site currently contains two automotive service station buildings. The front building is rectangular in plan and is located at the southeast corner of the lot. This building was most recently used as a tax preparation office. The rear building is L-shaped and is located at the northwest corner of the lot, with foot of the L lying along the north property line. All open space is currently paved. III. Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish the two existing commercial buildings and construct a 5-story mixed-use building with 48 dwelling units, 3 live/work units, 1 quick service restaurant (café), and 53 parking spaces. The live/work units would be at the ground floor, fronting San Pablo Avenue, and each would have a mezzanine for exclusively residential space. The café would be approximately 800 square feet and would be on the ground floor at the corner of San Pablo Avenue and Delaware Street. The ground floor would also contain a residential lobby at the northeastern corner of the lot, with an entrance on San Pablo Avenue, 2 bicycle storage rooms, and a community room at the northwestern corner of the lot. The ground floor along the southern edge of the site would contain a trash and recycling room and access to the parking garage via a new driveway along Delaware Street. Each residential level (floors 2-5) is arranged according to the same general floor plan, with a mix of studios and one- and two-bedroom dwelling units arranged around a doubleloaded corridor. The mezzanine of the community room also occurs on the second level. Floors 2-5 would occur at the eastern portion of the lot, and thus most of building mass occurs along San Pablo Avenue, providing a substantial setback (which varies between 12 and 40 ) along the western edge of the property. The second floor provides a 1,974 square-foot landscaped deck along the western portion of the site that is accessible to all residents and smaller private outdoor decks for each unit with a western frontage. Private decks would also be available for the western-facing units at the 3 rd, 4 th, and 5 th floors. IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Notice: Prior to submitting this application to the City, the applicant invited interested neighborhood organizations as well as owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project to a project preview meeting. The meeting was held on December 7, 2016, and attended by 5 people (meeting minutes are included as Attachment #5). Later, a pre-application poster was erected by the applicant in January On October 25, 2017, and February 22, 2018, the City mailed 287 public hearing notices to property owners and occupants, and to interested neighborhood organizations and the City posted notices within the neighborhood in three locations. In addition to comment letters in response to the Initial Study, the City has received 2 pieces of

11 March 8, 2018 Page 11 of 18 correspondence from members of the public, including neighborhood residents (see Attachment #8). B. Committee Review: The demolition of the existing commercial buildings was referred to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) on July 6, The LPC made no comments and took no action. The project was also reviewed at the Design Review Committee (DRC) and ZAB as a Preview in November, The members of both the DRC and ZAB provided general endorsements of the proposed design and massing and suggested recommendations, which the applicant has incorporated into the most recent plan set. On January 11, 2018, the DRC reviewed the project and forwarded a favorable recommendation to the ZAB on the Consent Calendar. The motion and specific direction for Final Design Review follow: Preliminary Design Review received a favorable recommendation to ZAB with the following direction, in addition to those made in November 2017, for Final Design Review: MOTION (Khan, Edwards) VOTE (Pink - absent). Recommendations: Look for a solution that will allow better growth for the trees at the west property line and present this at Final Design Review (FDR). Explore options that can enhance the live/work units, such as expanding the mezzanine. Banner signs should be installed during project construction, even if artwork to be replaced by business signage later on. V. Issues and Analysis A. CEQA Review: Typically, a project of this size would be a candidate for the City to deem exempt from additional CEQA review as in-fill development project (per of the Guidelines). However, as the project site is listed on the Cortese List (an annually updated list of hazardous materials sites), per of the CEQA Guidelines, a categorical exemption may not be used. The City contracted the urban consulting firm Urban Planning Partners, Inc. (UPP) to prepare an Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS-ND). The Initial Study found that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment and that no further study was needed to comply with CEQA. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the IS-ND was published on January 17, 2018 and was mailed to adjoining property owners and occupants, and to interested neighborhood organizations. In addition, the applicant filed the NOI with the County Clerk, and the IS-ND was submitted with the State Clearinghouse for distribution to interested state and regional agencies. The public comment period began on January 17, 2018, and closed on February 16, 2018.

12 March 8, 2018 Page 12 of 18 Following the release of the Initial Study and the NOI, the City received 4 comment letters from: (1) Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit, (2) East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), (3) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and (4) Jennifer Cole, a community member. The comment letters, the City s responses, and any revisions to the IS-MD are outlined Attachment 7, a memo from UPP. As the memo indicates, none of the comments change the conclusions in the Initial Study that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. B. Base Project, Density Bonus, and Requested Wavers/Modifications: The applicant has proposed a base project of 36 dwelling units, including 4 dwellings that would be affordable to very low income (VLI) households. Per California Government Code 65915(b)(1)(B), the inclusion of VLI units entitles the project to a Density Bonus, and based on the percentage to be included (11%), per Section 65915(f)(2), the project is entitled to a 35% density increase (up to 13 additional units). In this case, the applicant has proposed an additional 12 units for a total of 48 dwelling units. The City s base project procedures and the math used to calculate the Density Bonus are depicted in Table 5, below: Table 5: Density Bonus Calculations Base Project Proposed Project Floor Residential Total Units (Base Residential GFA Gross Floor Area Base Units + Density Bonus with DBU (GFA) Units (DBU)) 1 st 3, ,161 2 nd 9, ,122 3 rd 8, ,628 4 th 8, ,628 5 th ,628 Totals: 29, Average Unit Size: Base: 811 sq. ft. Proposed: 795 sq. ft. Difference: 18 sq. ft. (0.1 %) Qualifying Units per CA Gov t Code 65915(f) Desired Density Bonus Required % Very Low Income Raw # (11% of base units) Rounded 35% 11% VLI Units allows for: Rounded Total (Base+DBU) 12.6 DBU 13 DBU 49 Units In order to accommodate the additional units, the applicant has requested a waiver/modification to exceed the maximum height and number of stories in the C-W District. The proposed project would have a maximum height of 59 6, where 50 is the maximum allowed, and 5 stories, where 4 stories is the maximum allowed. The applicant requests this modification in order to retain a significant building setback from the lower-density residential buildings to the west of the property. C. Housing Accountability Act Analysis: The base project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, and therefore, the Housing

13 March 8, 2018 Page 13 of 18 Accountability Act (HAA) applies to that portion of the project. The City may not propose to deny the base project or approve the base project only if the density is reduced without making the findings listed in Government Code Section (j). 9 Staff is aware of no specific adverse impacts that could occur with the construction of base project. However, the proposed project employs the State Density Bonus law and requests waivers of zoning standards. Accordingly, HAA analysis under Section (j) does not apply to the proposed project. Instead, under State Density Bonus law, the Zoning Adjustments Board may not deny waivers unless it can make a written finding under Government Code Section 65915(e)(1). 10 Staff believes that approval of the requested waivers would not have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety, or the physical environment, or on any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and approval would not be contrary to State or Federal law. Per these standards, there are no grounds to deny the requested waivers. D. Mixed-Use Building in the C-W Zoning District: Per BMC Section 23E , a Use Permit is required to construct a mixed-use building that exceeds 20,000 square feet, subject to the Board making a finding of non-detriment and the findings noted in Section 23E This section requires that the structure and uses: A. Be consistent with the purposes of the District; B. Be compatible with the surrounding uses and buildings; C. Be consistent with the adopted West Berkeley Plan; D. Be supportive of an increase in the continuity of retail and service facilities at the ground level to the degree feasible and does not substantially degrade the existing urban fabric of the street and area; E. Provide an intensity of development which does not underutilize the property; F. Be capable of meeting any applicable performance standards for off-site impacts; and G. Not exceed the amount and intensity of use that can be served by available traffic capacity and potential parking supply. Staff believes the project is consistent with the purposes of the C-W District and the West Berkeley Plan because the proposal would create higher density and more housing at a currently underutilized lot along a commercial and transit corridor. In 9 The Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code Section (j), requires that when a proposed housing development complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, but a local agency proposes to deny the project or approve it only if the density is reduced, the agency must base its decision on written findings supported by substantial evidence that: 1. The development would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and 2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density. As used in the Act, a specific adverse impact means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existing on the date the applicant was complete. 10 Per Government Code Section 65915(e)(1), the ZAB may deny a request for a waiver only if it can make a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of one of the following: A) The waiver or modification would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety, or the physical environment, or on any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income, very-low income, and moderate-income households. For the purpose of this Subparagraph, specific adverse impact means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application was deemed complete; or B) The waiver or reduction would be contrary to State or Federal law.

14 March 8, 2018 Page 14 of 18 addition, the proposed project would be a substantial change for this portion of the commercial corridor and surrounding neighborhood and would introduce large-scale development north of University Avenue. The proposed ground floor, with live/work units and a café, would offer a transition from the commercial node at University Avenue and the residential and garage uses to the north. Moreover, staff believes that the proposed massing successfully provides a transition between the density along the commercial corridor and the residential areas in the R- 1A District. The proposed building is 5 stories at San Pablo Avenue, and while the first floor provides the minimum required left (west) side yard setback of 5 from the property line that abuts the residential district, floors 2-5 step back to provide a much more substantial setback. The portion of the building closest to the western property line is 1-story, with an outdoor deck at the second level. The proposed massing also allows all useable open space to be provided at the western portion of the parcel. Staff believes the project would not exceed the amount and intensity of use that can be served by available traffic capacity and potential parking supply. Given the analysis in the Transportation Analysis (Appendix C of the IS-ND), the anticipated increase in traffic due to the project would be negligible. Moreover, the project provides all required off-street parking spaces except 1, which the applicant proposes to substitute for bicycle parking. Since the project provides more than the required bicycle parking (48 spaces where the minimum required is 3), and given that the project occurs along a transit corridor where it can be reasonably expected that there will be demand for bicycle parking spaces, staff believes this substitution is permissible and would not lead to a shortage of automobile parking spaces. Moreover, given the analysis in the Transportation Analysis (Appendix C of the IS-ND), the anticipated increase in traffic due to the project would be negligible. E. Shadow Impacts: The proposed five-story building would be one of the largest buildings in the immediate vicinity of the project site and would cover more area than the existing buildings, and thus new shadows would be cast. The shadow studies (Attachment #2) show that the project will create an increase in shadows on neighboring residential buildings as follows: Winter Solstice: The southern façade of the 3-story, multiple dwelling unit building to the north at 1732 San Pablo Avenue would be shaded during all hours, and between 2 and 5 windows (including 2 bedroom windows) would be completely shaded. Portions of the multiple dwelling unit buildings approximately 110 feet to the east and across San Pablo Avenue at 1721, 1729, and 1737 San Pablo Avenue would be shaded during the evening hours, including several bedroom and living room windows that face San Pablo Avenue. A portion of the eastern façade of the single-family dwelling at the western abutting property at 1039 Delaware Street would be shaded during the morning hours, including one bedroom window. Summer Solstice: The single family dwelling at the western abutting property at 1039 Delaware Street would be completely shaded and portions of the residential buildings at 1737 and 1735 Tenth Street, including approximately 8 windows, would be shaded

15 March 8, 2018 Page 15 of 18 during the morning hours. The southern façade of the multiple dwelling unit building at 1732 San Pablo Avenue would be shaded during midday, and 5 bedroom windows (including 2 bedroom windows) would be affected. The applicant has also provided shadow studies that show the shadow impacts of a base zoning building, which meets the C-W District standards for maximum height (50 ), number of stories (4), FAR (3), and minimum setback requirements (no required yards except a 5 setback along the western property line). This building, while shorter than the proposed project, would still create similar shadows to the east and more shadows to the northwest and west of the project site. Thus, the shadows that would be created by the proposed project are minimal given the building envelope that is allowed in this zoning district. F. Proposed Live/Work Units: Per BMC Section 23E , an Administrative Use Permit is required to construct fewer than 9 new live/work units, subject to the findings noted in Section 23E This section requires that the proposed use permit be consistent with the purposes of the Live/Work Chapter (23E.20): A. To provide for the appropriate development of units which incorporate both living and working space. B. To provide flexibility as needed for the development of Live/Work Units, particularly within existing buildings. C. To provide locations where appropriate new businesses can start up. D. To provide opportunities for people to live in mixed use industrial and commercial areas where compatible with existing uses. E. To protect existing and potential industrial uses from conflicts which neighboring and nearby residential uses can cause. F. To protect existing and potential residential uses from increased detriment which neighboring and nearby industrial uses can cause. G. To permit Live/Work Units that function predominantly as workspaces and secondarily as residences. H. To assure that the division of space between living and working space within these units reflects the priority of workspace. I. To assure that the exterior design of live/work buildings is compatible with the exterior design of commercial, industrial and residential buildings in their area, while remaining consistent with the predominantly workspace character of live/work buildings. The applicant proposes live/work units with space that is shared between living and working, instead of a clear division of space (see Sheet A0.1E of the project plans). The applicant has provided several scenarios that describe how these unit could be used by different kinds of businesses (see Attachment #4). Those scenarios illustrate the potential flexibility of this kind of live/work unit and how the units would be used primarily as workspaces. Given the endorsements from the DRC, staff believes the proposed live/work units successfully activate a portion of San Pablo Avenue which currently lacks lively commercial activity. The applicant proposes large floor-to-ceiling windows at these entrances in the style of store-front windows, which would activate the street at the

16 March 8, 2018 Page 16 of 18 pedestrian level. Moreover, units would occur at the eastern edge of the property and would have commercial frontages and entrances along the commercial corridor, providing a transition from the retail to the south and the primarily residential uses to the north. G. General Plan Consistency: The 2002 General Plan contains several policies applicable to the project, including the following: 1. 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. 2. Policy H-33 Regional Housing Needs: Encourage housing production adequate to meet the housing production goals established by ABAG s Regional Housing Needs Determination for Berkeley. 3. 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 proposed project is an infill development project that would add 48 dwelling units, 3 live/work units, and a quick service restaurant, and replace an underutilized, auto-oriented commercial use. The project would increase the population along a commercial and transit corridor and thus would bring more activity to the street. 4. Policy LU-7 Neighborhood Quality of Life, Action A: Require that new development be consistent with zoning standards and compatible with the scale, historic character, and surrounding uses in the area. 5. Policy UD-16 Context: The design and scale of new or remodeled buildings should respect the built environment in the area, particularly where the character of the built environment is largely defined by an aggregation of historically and architecturally significant buildings. 6. Policy UD-24 Area Character: Regulate new construction and alterations to ensure that they are truly compatible with and, where feasible, reinforce the desirable design characteristics of the particular area they are in. Staff Analysis: The project is consistent with the applicable zoning standards for the C-W Zoning District and would further goals of revitalizing West Berkeley by introducing new housing and ground floor nonresidential activities in the area. 7. Policy UD-32 Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows. Staff Analysis: As noted above, the shadow studies show that the proposed project will cause an increase in shading on the neighboring residential buildings, primarily the buildings to the west in the R-1A District. However, these impacts are

17 March 8, 2018 Page 17 of 18 consistent with those expected from a new mixed-use building that meets maximum height and FAR requirements. 8. Policy EM-5 Green Buildings: Promote and encourage compliance with green building standards. (Also see Policies EM-8, EM-26, EM-35, EM-36, and UD-6.) 9. Policy UD-33 Sustainable Design: Promote environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in new buildings. Staff Analysis: The project has applied for LEED Gold Certification with US Green Building Council. H. West Berkeley Plan Consistency: The 1993 Plan contains several policies applicable to the project, including the following: A. Land Use Goal 1: Over the economically active area of West Berkeley, provide for a continued economic and land use mix, incorporating manufacturing, other industrial, retail and office/laboratory uses, to benefit Berkeley residents and businesses economically, benefit the City government fiscally, and promotes the varied and interest character of the area. B. Economic Development Goal 3: Improve the level of neighborhood serving retail in West Berkeley. Specifically, explore how neighborhood serving retail uses might be brought to San Pablo Avenue (Policy A). C. Housing and Social Services Goal 5: Encourage the development of Live/Work Units in appropriate locations as set forth in the Land Use Element under appropriate development standards (Policy 5.1). Staff Analysis: The proposed project is intended to activate the commercial corridor along San Pablo Avenue and bring new residents to this West Berkeley neighborhood. The proposed live/work units and quick service restaurant on the ground floor would provide tenant spaces at this currently underutilized lot for small business owners and provide retail opportunities for residents and pedestrians. D. Land Use Goal 3: Protect residential core neighborhoods from adverse impacts of economic growth especially traffic and parking congestion and noise. E. Housing and Social Services Goal 4: Encourage appropriately scaled and located housing development. F. Land Use Goal 4: Assure that new development in any sector is of scale and design that is appropriate to its surrounding, while respecting the genuine economic and physical needs of the development. Staff Analysis: As noted above, the densest portion of the proposed building would occur along San Pablo Avenue, and the building provides a substantial setback at the floors above the first to respond to the lower density residential buildings to the west.

18 March 8, 2018 Page 18 of 18 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. ADOPT the proposed negative declaration; and B. APPROVE Use Permit #ZP pursuant to Section 23B and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1). Attachments: 1. Findings and Conditions 2. Project Plans, received December 12, Notice of Public Hearing, Dated February 22, Shadow Studies, received September 15, Neighborhood Meeting Minutes, received February 3, Applicant Statement, received September 15, Memorandum: Response to Comments on the 1740 San Pablo Avenue IS/ND 8. Correspondence Received The following documents can be found online ENUE.aspx: 9. Notice of Intent 10. Draft Initial Study Negative Declaration 11. IS-ND Compiled Appendices Staff Planner: Lucy Sundelson, LSundelson@cityofberkeley.info, (510)