A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: Downtown Zoning: Downtown Mixed Use (Core)/ Arts District Overlay C-DMU/ADO

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 NOVEMBER 30, Addison Street Use Permit # to demolish a one-story commercial building, and to construct a seven-story, mixed-use building containing an approximately 1,425-sq. ft. restaurant serving beer and wine and 29 offstreet parking spaces on the ground floor, and six stories of residential uses containing a total of 66 dwelling units. I. Background A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: Downtown Zoning: Downtown Mixed Use (Core)/ Arts District Overlay C-DMU/ADO B. Zoning Permits Required: Use Permit, under BMC Section 23C , to demolish a non-residential building Use Permit, under BMC Section 23E , to construct a mixed-use building in the C-D/MU district Use Permit, under BMC Section 23E A, to construct a building in the C- D/MU district with an average height that is greater than 60 ft. but not greater than 75 ft. Use Permit, under BMC Section 23E C, to modify the minimum required side and rear yard setbacks in the C-D/MU district Use Permit, under BMC Section 23E D.2-3, to pay an fee in lieu of providing on-site publicly-accessible open space in the C-D/MU Administrative Use Permit, under BMC Section 23E C, to create rooftop projections that exceed the C-D/MU district building height limit of 75 ft. with a Use Permit Administrative Use Permit, under BMC Section 23E , to establish beer and wine service that is incidental to food service C. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines ( In-fill Development projects ) Center Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us

2 November 30, 2017 Page 2 of 18 D. Parties Involved: Applicant Property Owner Kirk Peterson, AIA, Oakland, CA Ruegg & Ellsworth, Berkeley, CA E. Application Materials, Staff Reports and Correspondence are available on the Internet: _Addison.aspx Figure 1: Vicinity Map

3 November 30, 2017 Page 3 of 18 Figure 2: Site Plan

4 November 30, 2017 Page 4 of 18 Figure 3: Addison Street Façade Perspective Figure 4: Addison Street Façade Perspective

5 November 30, 2017 Page 5 of 18 Table 1: Land Use Information Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation Subject Property Fitness center Surrounding Properties North South East Theaters and performance venues Mixed use (commercial/residential) Mixed commercial (food services/office) C-D/MU Core Arts Overlay Downtown West Office 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 ) Inclusionary Housing fee BMC Section 23C.12 (for-sale units) Density Bonus Alcohol Sales/Service Applies to Project? No Yes No No Yes Explanation This project includes less than 7,500 sq. ft. of new, non-residential floor area and, therefore, it is not subject to the payment of these fees. If approved, this project will be subject to the payment of mitigations fees consistent with this City ordinance. This project proposes the creation of rental housing and, therefore, the City s inclusionary housing ordinance for for-sale housing will not apply. The applicant has not requested a density bonus pursuant to Gov t Code Section This proposal includes a request to establish alcoholic beverage service that would be incidental to meals and, therefore, would be subject to special conditions of approval for this service. See Attachment 1, Findings and Conditions. Creeks No No open creeks are within 30 feet of this project site. Green Building Score Yes In accordance with BMC Section 23E A, the proposed development shall attain a LEED Gold rating or higher, or the equivalent ratings as determined by the Zoning Officer. A preliminary checklist provided with this Use Permit application indicates that the project would achieve such a rating, and final confirmation would be required prior to building permit application submittal as a conditions of approval. Historic Resources No A Historic Resource Evaluation (dated April 5, 2016) and LPC demolition referral per BMC 23C , revealed that no historic resources are located at this site or would be affected by the proposed demolition. This project includes the provision of public art within Percent for Art Yes the street façade of the proposed building. The applicant has submitted the requisite Declaration and, if this Use Permit is approved, would complete the

6 November 30, 2017 Page 6 of 18 Characteristic Privately-owned Public Open Space (POPOS) Oak Trees Rent Controlled Units Residential Preferred Parking (RPP) Seismic Hazards (SHMA) Street trees Public transit proximate Applies to Project? Yes No No No No Yes Yes Explanation installation subject to permission of the Civic Arts Commission This project is located in the Downtown and, therefore, is subject to the provision of POPOS. However, the applicant has agreed to pay a fee in-lieu of providing this space on site, in accordance with BMC Section 23E D. No coast live oak trees would be affected by this development proposal. No existing Rent Controlled units would be affected by this project proposal. The subject neighborhood is not included in the RPP program and residents of the proposed building would not be eligible for participation. This project site is not within an area identified in accordance with the State Hazards Mapping Act. There are no existing street trees adjacent to this site; however, two new trees are proposed and the City arborist has reviewed the proposed right-of-way plan and provided comments and recommendations the potential installation of one or two new trees. The project site is within 300 ft. of a Downtown Berkeley BART station entrance and is within one block of the Downtown transit hub. Table 3: Project Chronology Date Action January 27, 2016 February 25, 2016 April 5, July 20 and September 20, 2016 November 3, 2016 December 13 and 15, 2016 December 15, 2016 June 20, 2017 July 20, 2017 July 26, 2017 August 4 and November 1, 2017 November 3, 2017 November 16, 2017 November 30, 2017 Application submitted Application deemed incomplete Application resubmittals received Landmarks Preservation Commission demolition referral Application resubmittals received Design Review Committee (DRC) preview and comment Proposal revised and application resubmittals received DRC review - favorable recommendation Civic Arts Commission approval to alter public art Application resubmittals received Application deemed complete Public hearing notices mailed/posted ZAB hearing

7 November 30, 2017 Page 7 of 18 Table 4: Development Standards Standards for 2072 Addison Street BMC Sections 23E Existing Proposed (approx.) Regulatory Standard Lot Area (sq. ft.) 10,230 10,230 Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) Total Floor Area 10,230 61,450 Commercial Floor Area 10,230 1,475 Residential Floor Area 0 55,040 Not regulated Floor Area Ratio 1 6 Dwelling Units Total 0 66 Affordable Not applicable 0 20% of total moderate income Above average grade (ft.) Maximum Building Height Stories 1 7 Not regulated Limited projections beyond roof (ft.) Not known Minimum Building Setbacks (ft.) Front (north) Rear (south) Left (east) side Right (west) side where < 20 ft. in height where > 20 ft. in height where < 65 ft. from street frontage where > 20 ft. in height & > 65 ft. from street frontage where < 65 ft. from street frontage where > 20 ft. in height & > 65 ft. from street frontage Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) 0 5,408 Privately-Owned Public Open Space (sq. ft.) 0 0 5,280 (80 sq. ft. per 66 dwelling units) 29 3 (1 per 50 commercial floor area)

8 November 30, 2017 Page 8 of 18 Standards for 2072 Addison Street BMC Sections 23E Parking Spaces Auto Existing Proposed (approx.) Commercial 0 2 Residential 0 22 Regulatory Standard 2 (1.5 spaces per 1K sq. ft. of commercial area) 22 (1 space per 3 dwelling units) Surplus 0 5 Not regulated Motorcycle 0 3 Not regulated Bicycle (1 per 2K sq. ft. of commercial floor area) 1 In accordance with BMC Section 23E A, the Board may grant a Use Permit to increase the height of a building beyond 60 ft. but not to exceed 75 ft., with no specific finding to be made. 2 In accordance with BMC Section 23E C, the Board may grant a Use Permit to reduce minimum setback requirements subject to the Findings of BMC Section 23E F. 3 In accordance with BMC Section 23E D, the Board may grant a Use Permit to accept payment of fees in lieu of the providing POPOS. II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description: Downtown Berkeley is the City s most dense and active mixed-use neighborhood, where residents and commercial businesses benefit from its high concentration of people, services and infrastructure. This is a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood that features the City s central transit connection hub, its largest hotels and high-rise office buildings, an arts and theater district, the University Art Museum, and many City Landmarks including the Francis K. Shattuck Building (2100 Shattuck Avenue), the Central Public Library (2090 Kittredge Street) and Civic Center Park. The Downtown commercial district is home to a variety of retailers, cinemas, personal and food services, and banks; these are local business enterprises as well as outlets for regional and national firms. The subject property is located on Addison Street in the Downtown Arts District Overlay where special attention is given to artistic amenities within the right-of-way and concentrated land uses that support the existing performance venues and late evening activity. B. Site Conditions: The subject property currently contains a single-story commercial building of approximately 11,000-sq. ft. that was originally constructed in 1923 as a commercial garage. According to a land survey provided with this Use Permit application, the building occupies the entire parcel. This property abuts the City Landmark Francis K. Shattuck Building at 2100 Shattuck Avenue (immediately to the east) and, prior to 1923, the property had been the site

9 November 30, 2017 Page 9 of 18 of the historic building s livery stables. Records indicate that by 1947 the current building had become the location of the American Railway Express offices and, subsequently, was expanded and then converted into a retail store with alterations to the public façade. A personal gym, established in 1988, now occupies the building. III. Project Description The applicant and project architect proposes to demolish the existing low-rise commercial building, and to construct a new seven-story, mixed-use building containing a commercial ground floor with on-site parking and, above, six stories containing a total of 66 dwelling units. The roof of the building would be 75 ft. above the lowest grade on the site; architectural and mechanical features would project beyond the roof up to 15 ft. The sole, ground-floor commercial tenant space is intended to host a quick or fullservice food use with incidental service of beer and wine service. The grade-level parking garage, employing triple-vehicle stacking lifts, would provide the required offstreet parking spaces for the building s commercial and residential occupants. The residential component of the proposed building would offer a total of six studio units, and 48 one-bedroom and 12 two-bedroom apartments. All required usable open space for building residents would be provided in a communal roof terrace with landscape features and amenities to support passive recreational use. The applicant describes the building s architectural design as traditional, a result of the combined influences of the Beaux Arts and Chicago School movements. The building s street façade would feature a public art installation as permitted by the Civic Arts Commission if this Use Permit receives approval from the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB). A detailed description of the project is provided in Attachment 3, the Applicant Statement. IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: Prior to submitting the Use Permit application for this proposal, the applicant installed the requisite yellow proposed project development sign on the façade of the existing building. In January 2016, the applicant and property owner mailed correspondences to neighborhood occupants, residents and organizations explaining their pending development proposal and inviting all to attend a community meeting on February 11, 2016, and to address comments and inquiries about their proposal to the project architect while the Use Permit application was under review. Two individuals attended the February 2016 meeting, and one commented on the proposal, its architectural design and building materials. On November 16, 2017, the City staff mailed public hearing notices to property owners and occupants, and to interested neighborhood organizations in the vicinity of the project site, in accordance with BMC Section 23B That same day, staff posted notices at six locations in the neighborhood.

10 November 30, 2017 Page 10 of 18 As of November 22, 2017 (date of staff report completion), staff had received no correspondence or comments stating objection to this development proposal. B. Committee Review: Landmarks Preservation Commission On November 3, 2016, the proposed demolition of the existing commercial building was referred to the Landmarks Preservation Commission for review and consideration, in accordance with BMC Section 23C C. The Commission took no action to initiate Landmark or Structure of Merit consideration for the building. Design Review Committee On December 20, 2016, the Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed an earlier version of the architectural design for the proposed building. The Committee continued with their consideration with a request that the applicant look further at the front elevation for a more unified appearance, and at the east elevation for more interest and articulation. After some coordination with Public Works Engineer and Civic Arts staff to verify what flexibility would be possible with the existing art plaques in the sidewalk, the applicant shifted the garage entrance to the center of that street frontage. The revised proposal returned on July 20, 2017, with a more unified bay design and detailed information on the proposed building materials and color palette. Upon completing their review in July, the Committee acted to forward a favorable recommendation of the current design to ZAB for Use Permit approval with Conditions for Approval requiring the modifications described below as well as Final Design Review by the Committee prior to construction: All drawings submitted for ZAB review should match and be consistent. Decorative cornice should wrap around corner. Provide more detail on side elevations, such as divided lites on top floor windows. Area under center cupola element should be a place; develop before ZAB review. Provide more design and planning on the roof top open space. Create spaces and show how 40% landscape requirement is met. Final color palette to be reviewed at FDR. Civic Arts Commission On July 26, 2017, the Civic Arts Commission reviewed the applicant s proposal to reposition the Addison Street poetry panels embedded in the sidewalk adjacent to the subject parcel in order to accommodate a new driveway and curb cut. The Commission approved the request and the proposed changes would occur subject to review by Public Works Engineering staff prior to execution. V. Issues and Analysis A. Demolition of a building used for non-residential purposes In accordance with BMC Section 23C D, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing, low-rise commercial building of one story and approximately 10,000 sq.

11 November 30, 2017 Page 11 of 18 ft. This request is found to be permissible because it would enable construction of the proposed new development containing ground floor commercial space and 66 dwelling units. The proposed multi-story, mixed-use building with dense housing is the preferred land use and type of development for this location in an urbanized area. Further, the removal of the existing commercial building is not expected to be materially detrimental to the commercial needs of the neighborhood or City where vacancy rates do not currently indicate a shortage of supply (according to the City s economic development report, dated July 18, 2017). For these reasons, the Board could make that findings required for demolition in Section 23C , and staff recommends approval of the request. B. Creation of 66 new dwelling units in Downtown The proposal to create 66 new dwelling units in the Downtown is found to be beneficial for the City and appropriate for this high-density neighborhood where residential concentration assures neighborhood vitality. The adopted Housing Element (2015) encourages housing production and efforts to achieve Berkeley s regional fair share of new housing units as recognized by the City and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Therefore, increasing the inventory of housing units would be generally beneficial to Berkeley and its residents, and supportive of the City s housing production goals. This proposal satisfies all of the C-D/MU district development standards for the creation of residential units within mixed-use projects (BMC Section 23E , ), including the requirements for on-site parking and usable open space by providing a communal roof deck totaling approximately 5,400 sq. ft. (where a minimum of 5,280 sq. ft. is required at the rate of 40 sq. ft. per unit for 66 units). The proposed units range in size from compact studios to one- and two-bedroom units, and represent a diverse supply of units that could accommodate individuals and small households. The creation of units at this location would be consist with the Zoning ordinance requirements and responsive to the City s policy directives. Staff recommends approval of the proposed 66 dwelling units. C. Housing Accountability Act--applicability The Housing Accountability Act, 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. There are multiple aspects of the proposed development project that do not meet the base regulatory standards of the BMC: proposed building height of 75 ft., and reduced side and rear yard setbacks; see Table 4, Development Standards. Therefore, (j) does not apply to this project as currently proposed.

12 November 30, 2017 Page 12 of 18 D. Creation of new floor area in the Downtown In order to approve a Use Permit for the creation of new floor area in the Downtown, the Board must find that the proposed building is compatible with visual character form of the district, and that no designated Landmark would be adversely affected the appearance of the building; see BMC Section 23E D. The building design includes high quality materials, architectural detail and articulation which provide depth and texture within the facades. The scale of the building is in keeping with the Downtown Core and, at seven stories and 75 ft. in height, is restrained with the Arts Overlay district where the existing buildings on the north side of Addison are of a more moderate scale. The ground floor features pronounced entrances that are welcoming and visually interesting, and generously-sized commercial storefront windows that enhance the relationship of occupants and passers-by. The proposed building has been designed with deference and sensitivity to the nearby Landmarks: the Golden Sheaf Bakery (2081 Addison, now the Aurora Theatre Co.), the Kress Store (2036 Shattuck, now Half-Price Books) and the Francis K. Shattuck building (2144 Shattuck). Where the character of the Landmark buildings is defined by their fine materials, scale and attention to detail, so too does the proposed building lend careful attention to its materials and artistic expression. The new building would feature a public art component that would be developed in consultation with the Civic Arts Commission through the Percent for Art Program. Given these features, the proposed building is not expected to have an adverse effect on the nearby Landmark buildings or on the character of the Arts Overly District. Notwithstanding the building height, side and rear yard setbacks, and POPOS (described below), the proposed development complies with all applicable standards for new construction in the C-D/MU; see Table 4, above. E. Proposed building height of 75 ft. the exceeds 60 ft. base regulatory standard The proposal to construct a new building in the Downtown Core that would exceed 60 feet is found to be permissible because the building would not exceed 75 feet and, therefore, this proposal does not require special consideration as one the limited number of new high-rise developments in the Downtown; see BMC Section 23E A. Further, the proposal to exceed 60 feet is appropriate for this location in the Downtown Core where the subject parcel is proximate to existing buildings of comparable height and scale: these buildings are located at 2030 Addison (seven stories), 2055 Center Street (nine stories) and 2144 Shattuck (12 stories). The additional 15 feet of vertical height would allow for the creation of an additional story containing a total of 11 dwelling units, where such a story would not otherwise be possible to create. The additional 15 feet of building height thereby increases the residential unit yield for the project as much as 17 percent. Given this potential return to the City in the form of increased unit production in exchange for greater building height, where potential impacts are not expected to be detrimental (described further, below), staff believes the Board should give this request favorable consideration for its benefits to housing production.

13 November 30, 2017 Page 13 of 18 F. Projections beyond the proposed building roof plane This development proposal includes rooftop projections in the form of two stairwell penthouses, an elevator penthouse, a mechanical room and an architectural loggia. These projections would extend 15 ft. above the proposed roof. The combined area of these projections (e. g.: total footprint) is approximately 720 sq. ft. The combined area represent approximately 13 percent of the total roof area of approximately 5,750 sq. ft. This amount is less than 15 percent of the total roof area and, therefore, these projections would be permissible in accordance with BMC Section 23E C. These features would be set back from the plane of each of the building s facades and, in these locations, their potential visual impact would be minimized. Because the DRC has reviewed the project design and made a favorable recommendation to the Board, staff believes proposed projections do not represent a potentially detrimental aspect of the project and could be approved. G. Reduced side and rear yard setbacks The proposed project requests Use Permits to reduce the required 5-ft. side and rear yard setbacks for the new development to zero. Because the project is located in the C-D/MU, the request for reduced setbacks must meet the findings for approval found in BMC Section 23.E F: the Board must find that the modified setbacks will not unreasonably limit solar access or create significant increases in wind experience on the public right-of-way. Solar access. Due to its location in the Downtown Core area, the project s potential to impact the current sunlight and shadowing effects on the Addison Street and Shattuck Avenue public right-of-ways is found to be reasonable and consistent with such conditions in urbanized areas of high density. A shadow analysis provided with this Use Permit application, see Attachment 4 of this report, illustrates that the shadows created as a result of the proposed building would extend westward in the morning hours where no right-of-ways would be affected. The study depicts shadows extending northerly onto Addison Street during late morning, mid-day and afternoon throughout the year. These north-reaching shadows may also affect the intersection of Addison and Shattuck Avenue briefly in mid- to late-afternoon. The shadows would then extend eastward in the late afternoon and evening possibly extending beyond the Francis K. Shattuck building at 2144 Shattuck. Because the proposed building s shadow fan would produce an overall radial effect, the sunlight-and-shadow pattern would vary throughout a typical day and shadows would not endure on Addison Street for all of the daylight hours. Further, these potential impacts are not expected to be detrimental to the vitality of the street trees on Addison, where the City Arborist expressed no concern after reviewing this proposal. For all of these reasons, staff concludes that the potential shadow impacts of the proposed development would not be unreasonable or detrimental, and that the Board could make a favorable findings for the project in this regard.

14 November 30, 2017 Page 14 of 18 Wind experience. The strength of ground-level wind accelerations near buildings is controlled by the building s exposure to wind events, orientation and massing. In this case, the project site has limited exposure to wind due to its close proximity to other multi-story buildings, most notably 2055 Center Street (9 stories) and 2030 Addison (7 stories) which are located down-wind, or east, of the site. The proposed 7-story building would be of a comparable or lower maximum height and, thereby, would have limited exposure to wind activity in a manner that would affect conditions at the Addison right-of-way. The project site is oriented north-south and, as a result, the widest length of the proposed building faces east-west, which would intercept westerly winds. However, due to the limited western exposure described above, the building is less likely to adversely affect the pedestrian experience of wind within the right-of-way. The proposed massing of the building includes recesses within the elevations that created articulated facades which could achieve an overall building geometry that is similar to the geometry created by the required 5-ft. side and rear yard setbacks for the upper portion of the building. So the request for reduced side and rear yard setbacks, where other forms of building recesses are proposed, appears to be reasonable. With this kind of alternative massing and limited exposure, the proposed building is not likely to create significant increase in the wind experience on the public right-of-way. H. Fee in lieu of providing POPOS This proposal is required to develop and provide not less than 29 sq. ft. of publiclyaccessible open space (POPOS) on the project site at the rate of 50 sq. ft. per 1 sq. ft. of commercial space. An earlier iteration of this project included 32 sq. ft. of POPOS within the proposed roof terrace, but the applicant subsequently revised the project and removed the POPOS, citing logistical challenges with guaranteeing public access to the roof terrace on an indefinite and consistent basis. Therefore, the applicant has requested to pay an in lieu fee to help fund the Streets and Open Space Improvements Plan (SOSIP), in accordance with BMC Section 23E D.3. The Board could approve the request to pay the fee instead of providing the open space if it finds that the payment would support timely development of open space improvements that serve the project residents and other using Downtown; see BMC Section 23E G.1. Staff believes a SOSIP payment at this time would achieve this requirement given the capital projects currently in the early planning stage for Downtown (Center Street Plaza) and Civic Center Park. I. Beer and wine service incidental to meals within the proposed restaurant This proposal includes the establishment of an approximately 1,400-sq. ft. of food service at the ground floor within the Arts Overlay district. This use would be either a quick- or full-service restaurant but not a carry-out operation, which is discouraged at this location. As a quick- or full-service restaurant, it is consistent with the provisions of the C-D/MU and Arts Overlay district, and represents the preferred types of restaurants for Arts district due to their compatibility with nearby theater venues and

15 November 30, 2017 Page 15 of 18 potential to better support evening activity in the Downtown; see BMC Sections 23E (Uses Permitted) and 040 (Downtown Arts Overlay). The incidental service of beer or wine with meals has the potential to further enhance the dining experience and, thereby, support the viability for the proposed food service and, in turn, the district. If approved, the alcoholic beverage service would be subject to the City s standards conditions of operation, which ensure proper handling of beer and wine as well as training of restaurant operators and servers. These conditions guard the City and community against potential nuance activity. Staff concludes that the proposed restaurant with incidental alcoholic beverage services would be appropriate and beneficial in this location, and recommends that Board approve this use. J. General non-detriment BMC Section 23B A Under the circumstances in this case and existing at this time, construction of the proposed building is not expected to result in detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the Downtown neighborhood, nor to be injurious to adjoining properties, nor detrimental to the City as a whole. This is because, if approved, the project would be subject to review and approval by the Building Official to ensure compliance all local and state-mandated safety codes. Further, the proposal satisfies the requirements of the Zoning ordinance, which assures the introduction of compatible land use only, and defines the parameters for the appropriate scale of development in this district. With respect to contextual compatibility, the proposed project has received a favorable recommendation from the DRC for its architectural design, and an analysis of its potential sunlight impacts on the right-of-way is provided above. If approved, this project would be subject to the City s standard conditions regarding construction noise and air quality, waste diversion, toxics, and stormwater requirements; see Attachment 1 of this report. Staff believes the proposed project is generally non-detrimental and recommends that the Board make favorable findings in this regard. K. 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 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.

16 November 30, 2017 Page 16 of 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. 4. 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. 5. Policy UD-31- Views: Construction should avoid blocking significant views, especially ones toward the Bay, the hills, and significant landmarks such as the Campanile, Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island. Whenever possible, new buildings should enhance a vista or punctuate or clarify the urban pattern. 6. Policy UD-32 Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows. 7. Policy UD-33 Sustainable Design: Promote environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in new buildings. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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.) Staff Analysis: As detailed previously in the Issues and Analysis section of this report and outlined in Tables 3 and 4 (above), the proposed development responds to each of the General Plan policies listed above, and to the directives found therein. Specifically, the project proposal would: Represent an in-fill development on an under-utilized parcel in Berkeley s city center; in this location, the project would complete the existing development pattern, which features moderate- and high-rise buildings within a dense, urban pattern. Further housing production in the context of the City and region; Achieve, or likely surpass, the LEED Gold equivalent score for exceptional performance with respect to environmental sustainability; Feature an architectural design that has received a favorable recommendation from DRC for its special qualities, materials and character; Comply with all qualitative and quantitative BMC standards for new construction and expanded land use, including the provision of appropriate solar access;

17 November 30, 2017 Page 17 of 18 Embody the overall building scale and profile that are appropriate for the C-D/MU Core and the Arts Overlay district, where many historic resources are located; and Minimize potential impacts to solar access within the adjacent public spaces to a degree that is appropriate for its dense Downtown development context. L. Plan Consistency: The Downtown Area Plan, adopted in 2012, also contains several policies applicable to the project, including the following: 1. Policy LU-3.1: Housing needs. Accommodate a significant portion of Berkeley s share of regional housing growth as defined by Regional Housing Needs Assessments within the Core Area, Outer Core, Corridor, and Buffer areas, as compared with other appropriate areas in Berkeley. 2. Policy HC-3.1(a): Growth in Preservation. Significantly increase the capacity for new housing development in Downtown, as provided for in the Land Use chapter. 3. LU-1.1 (a): All the following uses in the mixed-use Core Area: commercial uses, multi-family residential uses; cultural & community uses; educational uses; public & private open space. 4. LU-1.1 (c): Along sidewalks where it is desirable to have high levels of foot traffic and visual/physical connections between public an interior space appropriate streetfacing street-level uses are active commercial uses, such as retail, restaurants 6. LU-4.1/ES-3: Transit-Oriented Development. Encourage use of transit and help reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions, by allowing buildings of highest appropriate intensity and height near BART and along Shattuck Avenue and University Avenue transit corridor. 7. HD-3.2: Continued Variety. Recognizing building heights, massing and scale, allow for continued variety that respects Downtown s context. 8. HD-4.2: Solar, Visual & Wind Impacts. Design and position new buildings to avoid significant adverse solar-, visual-, or wind-related impact on important public open spaces. Also provide for adequate natural light in residential units through appropriate building form. Staff analysis: As described previously in this report, the proposed development responds to each of the Downtown Are Plan policies listed above, and to the directives found therein. Specifically, the project proposal would: Intensify housing in Berkeley s city center; Further concentrate residential population near public transit, thereby ensuring its viability; Establish the preferred land uses for this location in this particular neighborhood, namely commercial/retail/restaurant;

18 November 30, 2017 Page 18 of 18 Enhance the experience of the street-level by accommodating a restaurant at ground floor adjacent to the sidewalk; Embody the building scale and profile that are within the range of appropriate sizes for this diverse urban center; and Provide for an adequate level of solar access within this dense and compact neighborhood, as well as provide for adequate building massing to guard against wind-related impacts. 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 #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 October 30, Applicant Statement, received August 4, Shadow Analysis, received April 5, Notice of Public Hearing, mailed and posted November 16, 2017 Prepared by: Fatema Crane, Senior Planner; fcrane@cityofberkeley.info; (510)