Berkeley zoning board approves 78-unit Durant

The Durant, as it would be viewed from Durant Avenue. (Click the image to see how it would look from Channing Way.) Image: The Austin Group

The Durant, as it would be viewed from Durant Avenue. (Click the image to see how it would look from Channing Way.) Image: The Austin Group

The Zoning Adjustments Board approved a new 78-unit apartment building for downtown Berkeley in a 5-2-1 vote Thursday night.

But opponents of the plan, who have criticized the new building’s potential impacts on its neighbors, say they will definitely appeal the decision to the City Council.

The building, called “The Durant,” is set to have frontage on both Durant Avenue and Channing Way; it’s set mid-block between Shattuck Avenue and Milvia Street. The south side of the building is proposed to rise to four stories, and the north side to reach six. (The developer had originally proposed eight stories on the north side but recently reduced it to six after the City Council lowered fees relating to affordable housing requirements.) 

Commissioners Deborah Matthews, George Williams, Robert Allen, Steven Donaldson and Igor Tregub voted yes to approve the project, while Elisa Mikiten and Sophie Hahn voted against it. Chairman Michael Alvarez Cohen abstained from the vote because he did not attend the prior meeting and said he hadn’t had time to review the public testimony.

Developer William Schrader Jr. said he believes that 70-80% of the building’s units will be occupied, at least at first, by students. The project includes 34 parking spaces, which Schrader said is 30% more than the city code requires. The project also features four electric car-charging stations, two car-share parking spots and 40 bike parking spaces. Residents will receive AC Transit passes in accordance with Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan. The project will not include below-market-rate units, but will send $1.5 million into the city’s Housing Trust Fund.

Screen shot 2013-03-15 at 12.07.05 PM

Opponents of The Durant say the project will reduce light and privacy at senior living home Stuart Pratt Manor at 2020 Durant Ave. Image: Google Maps

Opponents of the project say it will be problematic for seniors who live next door at 2020 Durant, at Stuart Pratt Manor, reducing their sunlight and privacy, and posing associated health hazards. They criticized the floor plans and asked the board to delay its decision to a future date so the developer could make adjustments that might lessen impacts on seniors. (See their presentation to the board as a PDF.)

“We owe our seniors more,” said Kathryn Stine who, along with her husband Stephen, said they were shocked at the board’s decision and “absolutely” plan to file an appeal. Stephen Stine said his mother lives at Stuart Pratt, and that he represents the interests of many of the seniors in the building. He said many of them do not speak English and could not attend the meeting because of accessibility issues and the language barrier.

Commissioner Mikiten said that, though the project appeared to be in line with the city’s General Plan, the layout of the units left much to be desired. She described them as “quite dark” and “cramped,” with an inefficient use of space. “I’m not convinced that your architect is done,” she told the developer. “This is not attractive space in any way; I do think 20 years down the line this is going to be a blighted building.”

Commissioner Hahn agreed, adding that the layout of the units was “not conducive to family living.” She said she had “very serious concerns,” particularly in relation to impacts on sunlight for nearby residents and the “detriment to neighbors” overall.

Hahn asked her fellow commissioners to delay their decision and direct the developer to come back with designs that would allow more light to fall on neighboring buildings and re-think unit layouts. But only Commissioner Tregub voted in support of her idea.

Commissioner Allen took issue with Hahn’s request, saying it would have thrown the approval process “into chaos.” (The city’s Design Review Committee, on which Allen sits, discussed the plans four times between July and December 2012.)

“How can we get anything built in this town if this is what the applicant has to go through to get a building?” he asked. “I think it’s wrong.”

Commissioners said they hope the building’s on-site manager does appropriate outreach, to neighbors and local police, so that anyone with complaints about noise or behavior has ready access to swift action. Several said they’d also like to see the developer find ways to create positive relationships between student tenants and seniors next door. One idea that came up was a shared yard space behind the properties that could potentially lead to opportunities for connections.

Commissioner Tregub said his vote to approve the developer’s plans was purely in the interest of pragmatism, and that he hoped the City Council would take seriously the concerns that had come up in relation to the project.

“The outcome of this vote is not going to determine that much,” he said. “It seems clear this is going to be appealed to council one way or another.”

See the project documents on the city’s website.

Related:
Decision on project at Durant, Channing delayed [03.04.13]
First high rise in 40 years proposed for downtown Berkeley [12.21.12]
Council sets fee for affordable housing mitigation [10.18.12]
New mixed-use building going up at Telegraph and Ashby [09.12.12]
Acheson Commons: Large change for downtown [04.12.12]
Parker Place wins council approval [01.18.12]

Berkeleyside publishes many articles every day. To see all our stories in chronological order, and read ones you may have missed, check out our All the News grid.

Print Friendly
Tagged , , , , , , ,
  • guest

    Lawyers will say anything. The world already knows that, and more; A global comparison shows that these seniors are among the most well cared for on the planet. Get them out once in awhile if you’re so concerned about sunshine.

  • kstine

    I urge anyone interested in the 2024 Durant/2025 Channing project to check out the floor plans for themselves and consider how well these units will benefit the city, the neighborhood, their future residents, and the future viability of this building: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_ZAB/2013-03-14_ZAB_ATT2_2024%20Durant_Project%20Plans.pdf

  • guest

    How many sun starved seniors can the Stine’s fit in the council chamber. We’ll find out. I hear a rousing rendition of “Let the Sun Shine In!”.

  • guest

    You’ve made it very clear. The best solution is for the developer to buy the senior housing, tear it down, and build a bigger project.

  • Guest

    Igor and ZAB, the seniors challenge you to tell us and the city of Berkeley what would constitute a “detriment” that rises to the level that ZAB would require modifications to a project or reject some or all of the requested use permits and

    I’m

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    Igor and ZAB, the seniors challenge you to tell us and the city of Berkeley what would constitute a “detriment” that rises to the level that ZAB would require modifications to a project or reject some or all of the requested use permits and/or reject the project outright.

    I’m willing to wager that if you cannot come up with a good example, that the people of Berkeley and possibly some adjudicatory body could find that ZAB’s decisions are arbitrary and capricious and are based on no workable standards. Show us what would constitute a detriment, and show us why the substantial decrease in direct and indirect sunlight does not constitute a detriment to the health, peace, safety, comfort, and welfare of the seniors, as ZAB is required to find before approving a project. We want to see what standards you use; what would constitute a detriment, and what would not. Otherwise, how are the people of Berkeley to know that ZAB isn’t just arbitrarily deciding on a whim? That is what seems to have happened with the 2024 Durant project; ZAB just decided, with no stated standards and rationale, why they decided the project presents no detriment, even though many members, including George Williams, clearly stated that the project is taking away a lot from the seniors. That is not a detriment?

    In our opinion, ZAB is totally abdicating their duty. Anyone watching the video of the hearing will witness ZAB members who clearly have not looked at the shadow studies provided and will see that ZAB members ask the developer* if the additional setbacks or other modifications help mitigate the shadow impact, without studying the shadow studies themselves. *Of course* the developer said that no modifications would mitigate the shadow impacts; but ZAB is or should be required to actually demand to see other alternatives and study the shadow impacts themselves, otherwise they are abdicating their duties and arbitrarily deciding that there is no detriment, according to Policy UD-32 of the General Plan ZAB must ensure that new buildings *minimize* solar impacts:

    “Policy UD-32 Shadows

    New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows.

    Action:

    A. In appropriate cases where a project could have significant impact on views or access to sunlight, require evaluation of those potential impacts.”

    http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/contentdisplay.aspx?id=500

    How can ZAB be said to have analyzed the impacts when ZAB did not require the developer to submit designs which could mitigate the solar impacts? And if the designer doesn’t mitigate the substantial solar impacts, the project should be rejected.

    People of Berkeley, watch the video, and see just how arbitrary ZAB’s decision was. And note how the developer had many chances to speak and rebut and make false claims (such as that a 20′ setback above 45′ feet would only prevent shadowing the street, whereas if you look at the shadow studies he submitted, you can clearly see that such a modification allows light to an entire additional floor of the senior home for most of the year; you can see that in the morning and early afternoon, shadows cast to the west, not to the north, and thus in the morning and early afternoon, larger setbacks and shorter building heights do provide more light to the seniors).

  • Charles_Siegel

    Has anyone suggested reversing the two halves of this project?

    Currently, the half of the project on Durant, next to the senior housing, is 6 stories and the other half, on Channing, is 4 stories.

    Why not put the 4-story half on Durant, next to the senior housing, and the 6-story half on Channing?

  • Charles_Siegel

    It looks like all the bedrooms and living rooms have windows, which is a big improvement over Berkeley Central. I assume the also have complete walls, rather than the half walls in Berkeley Central.

    The building looks pretty good in the renderings in that pdf: a sort of updated craftsman style.

  • guest

    Culture is so overrated.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    Ah, but see–the senior home at 2020 Durant was downzoned from R-4 to R-3 (limited to three stories maximum for new construction), in accordance with Downtown Area Plan Policy LU-7.1–just like 2024 Durant was supposed to be downzoned, and was downzoned in the DAP draft! So if anyone bought the senior home and tore it down, a new building would be limited to three stories–exactly the same as was prescribed for 2024 Durant, which was also R-4. Under the DAP, if anyone tore down the church, a new building would be limited to three stories. So that’s totally arbitrary and disparate treatment, that 2020 Durant was downzoned from R-4 to R-3, in accordance with Policy LU-7.1, and 2024 Durant wasn’t downzoned, it was upzoned from R-4 to C-DMU, in violation of the policy, for the economic gain of the property owner.

    The City of Berkeley is violating so many General Plan policies in their treatment of 2024 Durant that it’s astounding. And they’re breaking all these policies to the detriment of low-income seniors, many of whom are disabled, for the profit of a single landowner and developer. Every citizen of Berkeley should protest what’s happening, these blatant violations of policies and goals, because you could be next…

    “Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”

  • The_Sharkey

    What is your problem with these units, in specific?
    I would have been perfectly happy with something like this when I was a student, and even for quite a few years after I graduated.

    If you think these apartments look bad you clearly haven’t spent much time looking at housing in San Francisco.

  • The_Sharkey

    I don’t know if I, personally, would feel comfortable making the kinds of statements you are using a sample size of 25. Your complaints about sexism seem pretty sexist in and of themselves, and I think it’s kind of trashy the way you seem to be only mentioning the issue to push your own agenda Re: this development.

  • The_Sharkey

    A detriment might be something like putting a 6-story high density senior housing complex that would block sunlight next to a 3-story apartment complex.

    Which, oddly enough, is exactly the kind of development you’re suggesting instead.

  • The_Sharkey

    I’m glad you’re finally willing to use the term “NIMBY” because it fits the anti-development charge that you and your husband are leading quite well.

    And complaining about the residents losing their views of the campus? Really? Your objections are just getting silly at this point.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    And, right on schedule, Godwin’s Law has been satisfied once again.

  • The_Sharkey

    Wow, suggesting that people who support this development are Nazis?
    Pathetic.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    You cannot make a statistically sound argument based on that tiny sample size.

  • guest

    Running a smear campaign against Laurie? Promoting retail sales in residential zoning? Brilliant! You’ll have to tell us where her degree in design came from, I can’t find it.

  • guest

    “Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.” – A quote from Martin Niemoller. The “they” refers to the Nazi’s.

    This is the disease we suffer from; Turning every personal grudge and desire into a mythic battle of good and evil. That’s zealotry, not advocacy. Shame on you.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    The senior home has been there since 1967. It has been downzoned to R-3 in accordance with Policy LU-7.1 so any future construction on the site, 2020 Durant, will be limited to three stories–unlike 2024 Durant, which was not downzoned, but instead upzoned, in violation of Policy LU-7.1. There is no good reason for the special exception, especially where it will block so much direct *and* indirect light to the senior home, and where the upzoning was for the profit of a single landowner.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    The senior home has been there since 1967.

    It has been downzoned to R-3 in accordance with Policy LU-7.1 so any future construction on the site, 2020 Durant, will be limited to three stories–unlike 2024 Durant, which was not downzoned, but instead upzoned in violation of Policy
    LU-7.1.

    There is no good reason for the special exception, especially where it will block so much direct *and* indirect light to the senior home, and where the upzoning was for the profit of a single landowner.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    The senior home has been there since 1967. It has been downzoned to R-3
    in accordance with Policy LU-7.1 so any future construction on the
    site, 2020 Durant, will be limited to three stories–unlike 2024 Durant,
    which was not downzoned, but instead upzoned, in violation of Policy
    LU-7.1. There is no good reason for the special exception, especially
    where it will block so much direct *and* indirect light to the senior
    home, and where the upzoning was for the profit of a single landowner.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    No, the quote is just to point out that the seniors are asking the city to uphold existing policies, such as Policy LU-7.1, Policy UD-32, etc, and that the city can take the kinds of policy-violating actions they are taking against anyone in Berkeley. These low-income seniors can’t afford to hire a lawyer, can’t afford to move, many of them are disabled; they are probably among the most vulnerable populations in all of Berkeley. When the low-income, disabled seniors have these commenters railing against them on Berkeleyside, and with ZAB members like Igor Tregub passing the buck with his pragmatic voting, and the districts’ councilmember not opposing the initial upzoning in the first place, we just wonder who is willing to stand up for the seniors’ reasonable request that the actual zoning policies be upheld. And we appeal to the people of Berkeley to support the seniors, they have very few resources to speak for themselves. No one is stepping up to support our most vulnerable citizens. Hence, the quote, “Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”

  • 4Eenie

    Berkeleyseniorzoning, I see you fighting so hard to convince everyone of your point of view, and I understand that you are personally representing the seniors, including a relative of your own, in this debate. I have to ask this question to fully understand your passion for this issue, so please don’t think I mean any disrespect. Do you have anything monitarily or professionally to lose if the bulding is built, or anything monitarily or professionally to gain if the building is not built? Thank you.

  • Charles_Siegel

    From her web site:

    I continued on to UC Berkeley, receiving my BA in American History with Honors, High Distinction and Phi Beta Kappa. I went on to receive a JD from Stanford Law School and practiced law for several years, and later attended Rutgers University to study Industrial Relations and Human Resources.

  • The_Sharkey

    I got mine so screw everybody else!

    A very apt comment, in this case, since a key part of Stephen Stine’s argument to “defend” the residents of a 6-story building is that a 6-story building would be “out of character” for the neighborhood.

  • The_Sharkey

    Are churches and culture synonymous?
    I was unaware that religious institutions held a monopoly in this area.

  • guest

    Policy LU-7.1: Neighborhood Protections.
    Seek to reduce development pressures in res- idential-only areas, to promote the preservation and rehabilitation of older structures – and to conserve the scale of their historic fabric (see Policy HD-1.5).
    a)
    Maintain the R-2A zoning designation and downzone R-4 areas to R-3 (as shown in Figure LU-1), except for the north side of Dwight Way east of Shattuck Avenue.
    LU-18
    Land Use
    b) Development on parcels that remain resi- dentially zoned shall be controlled by appli- cable residential zoning provisions. Private development should not be subject to DAP private development requirements or proce- dures unless explicitly called for in the DAP.
    c) Consider creation of design guidelines and public improvements that maintain and en- hance the special character of residential neighborhoods.

    http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_DAP/FINAL_x-DAP%20document_120329.pdf

  • guest

    So where’s the degree in design?

  • The_Sharkey

    No. Sorry.

    You used a quote about the Holocaust to support your agenda against this development. I disagree with your opinion, but I give you enough credit to assume that you are intelligent enough to know exactly what you were doing when you used that quote.

  • NIMBY and proud

    One more time: the original people who said Not In My Back Yard were the residents of the Love Canal area who were being poisoned by toxic waste. There are many times when Not in My Back Yard is the prudent position to take. Only the intellectually impoverished think hollering NIMBY!!! is the way to discuss problems which are often very serious.

  • emraguso

    For those who are interested, I uploaded some new images to show how this would look from Durant and Channing. (Click the main image to see how it would look from Channing.)

  • EBGuy

    Charles, there’s a deed restriction on the Channing property that doesn’t allow them to go over 4 stories.

  • The_Sharkey

    The original meaning doesn’t matter in this discussion, only the current meaning.

    NIMBYism as it is currently understood is the selfish idea that something should be Not In My Back Yard, but is acceptable in someone else’s back yard. Which is a good description of what Kstine and her husband are arguing.

  • The_Sharkey

    I don’t care how long it’s been there. Arguing that a 6-story building would be “out of place” next to a 6-story building is insane. Arguing that a 6-story building would be “detrimental” to one 6-story building, but that that 6-story building wouldn’t be detrimental to a 3-story building is insane.

    Your whole argument boils down to “We got here first so shove off!

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    So are you saying that people can *only* use that quote in reference
    to World War II? Can people only use Martin Luther King Jr’s quotations in reference specifically to Jim Crow? Can people only use Gandhi’s quotations in reference to British occupation of India?

    The quote was designed for people to think about protecting vulnerable citizens, and to inspire people to not be politically apathetic when their neighbors are in need, to show compassion and lend a helping hand.

    “Next time you feel apathetic, think of this quote from Martin Niemoller and apply to it all aspects of your life…It is paramount that we educate ourselves, educate each other, and take an active role in society. Sitting on the side lines until it is too
    late helps no one.”

    http://students.hamilton.edu/spectator/opinion/p/obama-or-romney-it-doesn-t-matter-who-wins-our-downfall-lies-in-an-uneducated-electorate/view

    “His statement, sometimes presented as a poem, is well-known, frequently
    quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    Nothing monetary or professional is involved. This is an issue of the city violating numerous explicit goals and policies for the express economic gain of a single landowner and developer, to the detriment of the low-income seniors of Stuart Pratt, many of whom are disabled. Not sure why it would seem odd that someone would stand up for them. The live in studio apartments with only one window. Many are mobility disabled, so they spend more time indoors than most people, and depend on the sunlight through their one window to avoid seasonal affective disorder and to get adequate vitamin D. You understand, that being low-income, their sunlight and enjoyment of their studio apartments are a large part of what they enjoy in life; they don’t have the money for vacations, trips, etc, many are disabled so they don’t get around much, etc. To see the city violating policies that were *designed to protect* the seniors and ensure a three story building at 2024 Durant is in my mind incomprehensible. We are not against more housing, against infill, etc–this is just not the place for it, as can be evidence in Downtown Area Plan LU-7.1, etc.

  • The_Sharkey

    It is a quote about the Holocaust which you are appropriating for your NIMBY objections to a project that would provide much-needed housing in a downtown area a couple blocks away from a major University.

    You aren’t an advocate for seniors, you are a zealot against this specific project.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    The city is not “violating policies.” There was a policy-compliant review by the zoning board. They approved the project. You’re obviously unhappy about the outcome, but that doesn’t make it a policy violation.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    Part of the whole point is that the Downtown Area Plan *explicitly* designated the R-4 neighborhood that 2024 Durant is/was part of as a protected neighborhood, a
    neighborhood ordered to be protected from downtown “development
    pressures” (pressures to build dense new developments for monetary gain and increased housing). 2024 Durant has been part of the protected residential neighborhood since at least 1967 (it was zoned R-5 residential in 1967, and was R-4 most recently).

    The method of enforcing the protection from undue development pressures is the downzoning from R-4 to R-3 ordered in Downtown Area Plan Policy LU-7.1. So for everyone talking about how we need to tear down the church and build over three stories there to provide property taxes and providing housing for the city, that is *exactly* the type of development pressure the DAP orders the city to protect the neighborhood from–people arguing that large development there is necessary, pressures to develop that quiet, residential site with a six-story building. Goal LU-7 orders the city to maintain the existing character and scale of the neighborhood–such as preserving the quiet, two-story character of the church building and its residential character–upzoning it to C-DMU commercial mixed use and building a six-story building exactly violates the Downtown Area Plan’s explicit goals and policies for the neighborhood.

    That is the point–clearly arguing that taking 80%-92% of the sunlight from a senior home and demolishing a church that church groups want to buy for use as a church is justified because a large new apartment building will provide tax revenue and lots of housing is *exactly* the type of development pressure the DAP orders the city to avoid for this neighborhood.

    From page LU-3 of the Downtown Area Plan:

    “Residential Neighborhoods. Few opportunity sites exist in residential-only areas, but when
    development does occur, it will be subject to residential zoning. Many residents have expressed
    their desire to maintain the scale and character of these residential areas. To reduce development pressures that could result in inappropriate development, Plan policies call for downzoning the southwest portion of the Downtown Area”

    From pages LU-18 and LU-19 of the Downtown Area Plan:

    “GOAL LU-7: MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SCALE AND CHARACTER OF RESIDENTIAL-
    ONLY AREAS.

    Policy LU-7.1: Neighborhood Protections.
    Seek to reduce development pressures in residential-only areas, to promote the preservation
    and rehabilitation of older structures – and toconserve the scale of their historic fabric (see
    Policy HD-1.5).

    a) Maintain the R-2A zoning designation and downzone R-4 areas to R-3 (as shown in
    Figure LU-1), except for the north side of Dwight Way east of Shattuck Avenue. from R-4 to R-3.”

    Note that 2024 Durant, 2020 Durant, 2025 Channing, Berkeley High, etc, were all part of this R-4 protected neighborhood–all of the properties west of 2024 Durant and 2025 Channing, such as the senior home itself at 2020 Durant and Berkeley High, were downzoned from R-4 to R-3 in accordance with Policy LU-7.1–clearly Policy LU-7.1 applies to the neighborhood. Upzoning 2024 Durant to C-DMU is an illegitimate annexation of the 2024 Durant property from the protected residential neighborhood to the more dense, commercial Downtown “Core” and “Corridor” neighborhoods.

    It is an illegitimate annexation, it as an illegitimate settlement of commercial zoning and prohibited development pressures from the protected R-4/R-3 protected neighborhood that is exactly against all of the express goals and policies to protect the neighborhood. The fact that we are arguing about this all is clear evidence that there are tremendous prohibited development pressures being exerted on the 2024 Durant property, development pressures the Downtown Area Plan orders the city to *alleviate* by downzoning 2024 Durant to R-3 zoning, not *exacerbate* by uzponing it to C-DMU commercial mixed use zoning, which is exactly what the city did, in violation of Goal LU-7 and Policy LU-7.1

    Here’s the Downtown Area Plan:

    http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/dap/

    http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_DAP/FINAL_x-DAP%20document_120329.pdf

    See the attached images, one shows the extent of the R-4 protected neighborhood at the time the DAP was passed–it clearly shows 2024 Durant and the Staples parking lot to the east are part of the R-4 protected neighborhood; and the other image shows 2024 Durant as clearly downzoned to R-3 in the May 2011 draft of the DAP, the city correctly downzoned 2024 Durant to R-3 in the May 2011 draft of the DAP, in accordance with Policy LU-7.1.

    The city later upzoned 2024 Durant to C-DMU, in violation of Policy LU-7.1, for the express economic gain of the owner of the property, without directly notifying or consulting the neighbors–we would obviously have protested the illegitimate upzoning of 2024 Durant, in violation of Policy LU-7.1, if we had known, but low-income seniors do not read the backs of city newspapers looking for city notices about upzoning and do not monitor the city website for obscure zoning notices for properties next door. It was Councilmember Jesse Arreguin’s responsibility and municipal and ethical duty to inform the seniors and other neighbors that the owner was petitioning the city to upzone the property, but the property owner, the councilmember, the Planning Commission, and City Council, did not notify or consult the seniors and neighbors, did not give a friendly, neighborly, or civic heads up.

    This obvious lack of participation of the direct neighbors in the upzoning decision flatly violates the citizen participation element and policies of the General Plan:

    “Notification, Information, and Citizen Input: the Planning Commission and the Zoning Adjustments Board

    For effective citizen participation to flourish, excellent notification procedures are essential. Citizens cannot participate if they are not informed that something is going to happen. Mere
    notification, however, is insufficient. Citizens also require appropriate information and adequate time to respond. Further, without an effectively structured forum for presenting citizen input, even notification and information fall short of what a well-governed city must provide. The policies in this Element on notification thus deal with the methods for insuring that notification is as thorough as a well-administered city can provide, and also that after notification
    there is information and time available to insure effective citizen participation in receptive and responsive settings.

    The Planning Commission is the most important City body for citizen participation in land use planning decisions other than the project context of the Zoning Adjustments Board. The Planning Commission addresses long-term planning issues of general interest and broad scope,
    such as the citywide General Plan, area plans, amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, land use changes, development agreements, and many other matters of general interest and importance to all Berkeley residents.

    Element Objectives

    The policies and actions of the Citizen Participation Element are intended to achieve the following six objectives:

    1. Ensure citizen and community participation in General Plan and other planning tasks.

    2. Improve citizen participation in relationship to the crucial decision-making bodies in land use matters.

    3. Enhance notification, information, and process for citizen input in land use matters.

    4. Improve neighborhood participation in Current planning and decisions.

    5. Increase the use of new technology for citizen participation.

    6. Improve the role of City administrative structure and staff in relationship to meaningful citizen participation.

    Policy CP-2 Community Involvement in Planning

    Whenever an area plan, a strategic plan, or any other Current planning is undertaken, there must be continuous and maximum participation by those who will be affected by the plan including
    committees of residents who live in or near the plan area, merchants, and others who do business in the plan area, as well as members of interested groups and the general public. (Also see Land Use Policy LU-5, Economic Development and Employment Policy ED-5, and Open Space Policy OS-5.)

    http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/contentdisplay.aspx?id=474

    So as you can see, the city clearly violated many, many explicit goals and policies designed to protect the low-income seniors and other neighbors when it upzoned the 2024 Durant property, and when ZAB approved the project the other week. That is what we are fighting for–the city should not violate all expressly applicable goals and policies, to the severe detriment of the low-income, disabled seniors, for the express economic profit of a single landwonwer and developer.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    From what I understand, KQED Marketplace at 4PM today is having a show on how development pressures in downtown Los Angeles is edging out nonprofits who are helping homeless people in downtown’s skid row. I think the radio ad even used the term “development pressures.” Dear KQED Marketplace, please do a story on downtown Berkeley. Heres a possible blurb:

    “City of Berkeley Zoning Policy Violations Harm Seniors, Threaten Chruch:

    As downtown Berkeley becomes more lucrative for real estate developers, what’s to be done about the city’s violation of its zoning goals ad policies? The city has violated numerous explicit General Plan goals and policies protecting 2024 Durant and the southwest residential neighborhood from development pressures, and has illegitimately upzoned 2024 Durant from R-4 to R-3, creating intense and prohibited development pressures that threaten the neighborhoring low-income senior home, filled with disabled seniors, and threatens the church buliding at the site, which two church groups want to buy for their religious services. Will profits for a single landowner and developmer on the one hand, or fair governance, the enforcement of explicit zoning goals and policies, the ethical treatment of low-income, disabled seniors, and respect for cultural and religious diversity win out in Berkeley?”

    Here’s the actual KQED Marketplace blurb for the story today at 4PM:

    “Whither Skid Row?
    As downtown Los Angeles becomes more lucrative for real estate developers, what’s to be done about the city’s controversial homeless community known as Skid Row? As the show reports, that question has been the subject of fevered debate.”

    http://www.kqed.org/radio/programs/index.jsp?pgmid=RD29

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    Did anyone say religious institutions are the only source of culture? No. However, there are several arts institutions and cultural outlets in the downtown area. There are two church buildings downtown; one is the Buddhist temple on Channing; one is the church building at 2024 Durant that two church groups want to buy. So we have lots of art and music institutions, Freight and Salvage, Jazz School, La Note, Berkeley Rep, lots of bookstores, etc, downtown, but if 2024 Durant is destroyed, we will have only one house of worship downtown.

    Are you refuting the fact that religious institutions provide both religious and cultural value? Did anyone say anything about them being synonymous or anyone having any sort of monopoly?

  • The_Sharkey

    “…respect for cultural and religious diversity…”

    Wow, your zealotry is getting ridiculous.

  • The_Sharkey

    The need for dedicated houses of worship is declining every year.
    Suggesting that anyone who supports this development is “anti-diversity” is the worst kind of FOX-News factual manipulation.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/08/nones-protestant-religion-pew/1618445/

  • kstine

    I hesitate to engage with you, though feel this needs to be reiterated: “the Stines” are real people, who have a real senior relative living next door to this project, and are friends with and concerned for the other real senior residents at Stuart Pratt whose real lives will undoubtedly be affected by this development. Our advocacy, which you consider “zealotry” is based in genuine compassion and concern for a vulnerable population and for the role that citizens might play in exerting some voice and agency over their environment.

  • 4eenie

    Thank you for your reply.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    a) Two churches want to buy the church for use.

    b) The population in downtown Berkeley is set to increase dramatically, that’s the point of the Downtown Area Plan and all of the new construction. These two church groups want to offer religious services to the increasing downtown population–it’ not like population will be decreasing downtown.

    c) The city of Berkeley wants to make downtown a vibrant, culturally relevant, diverse area. I would think that having only one church building, the Buddhist temple on Channing, and demolishing the only other church building, when two church groups want to use the second church building on Durant for religious services, does not contribute, but detracts from cultural and religious diversity and having a vibrant downtown. With more and more people living downtown, it is in the city’s interest to have more than one, and more than one type, of church downtown, if the city wants to have a truly vibrant, lively, and diverse downtown.

  • baklazhan

    Holy crap that senior living home is ugly. If they were concerned about sunlight, maybe they should’ve put in a few more windows…

  • windows

    You know why they didn’t put in more windows? Because the senior home was sponsored by the church…the architect was an agent of the church…they didn’t think the church would sell out and betray the seniors by selling the church building to a developer who wanted to tear down the church and build a six-story building in its place! The senior home is named Stuart Pratt…named after the acting pastor of the 2024 Durant church at the time, Pastor Stuart S. Pratt.