Public Comment

Having served on the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB), Planning Commission, City Council and in the office of Mayor, I have some understanding of the problems you are facing when you are considering action on a highly controversial subject such as 2211 Harold Way. When the voters approved the construction of two new residential buildings in the Core Downtown, no specific site was ever mentioned. The voters did not grant an entitlement to construct the proposed building at 2211 Harold Way and none was ever inferred, as this site is not listed as one of the 33 residential opportunity sites in the Core Downtown in the General Plan. These new buildings were to considered through the Use Permit process which specifically gives you authority to approve or to deny depending upon the particular circumstances of the site.

In considering those circumstances, you may feel so overwhelmed by the many details that are hearing about, that you just want to vote and move on. I urge you to avoid doing that. You are the gatekeepers for the direction that Berkeley will take. If built on the Harold Way site, this proposed building will not only be the most prominent building in Berkeley, it will be the dominant building for all the land on the Bay shore that stretches north of the Bay Bridge. This project is that important. Please, think about your responsibility to the future, and ensure you have a complete understanding of the project before you take action. And, there is much unfinished business in the application before you at this time. 

1. The Total Height of the Building is Unknown: 

In November 2010, the voters were promised that the two new residential buildings and the one hotel to be constructed in the Core Downtown would be "no higher" than existing buildings. The proposed hotel building has cut back its height to meet that promise, but not 2211 Harold Way which continues to be presented at an actual height that exceeds that of the Great Western/Chase building, the tallest existing building in the Downtown. In the attachment to the Staff Report, the Design Review Committee continues to request that the height of 2211 Harold Way be determined by the city. 

2. The Geo-Technical Feasibility Remains Clouded:  

The applicant has submitted a letter from a respected structural engineer, S. Tipping who states that the construction of the building is feasible. However, from a reading of the Tipping letter, it is clear that Mr. Tipping did not visit the site. He reviewed the Geotechnical Feasibility Study done by ENGEO and original records.  

The ENGEO report done in January 2013 is obsolete as determined within the report itself to be valid for only two years. Additionally, the ENGEO report was done on the basis of a different design, one which is no longer before you. Further, it specifically recommends that "a site specific Geotechnical exploration" be done to confirm that "the potential for liquefaction at the site" was negligible.  

Another letter from structural engineers, Tuan and Robinson, specifically states in their inspection they did not inspect and determine the condition of the Strawberry Creek culvert that lies on the north side of the project.  

The applicant still proposes that the baseline condition of the foundations of the Shattuck Hotel be determined after the project is permitted. He states that this is not uncommon in construction. The circumstances of this particular project do not fit into what might be defined as "common" construction practices. This is what is not common: the existence of an existing and active hotel built on top of aged foundations on a site within two miles of an active earthquake zone capable of an 8+ intensity and designated as a fault likely to break; a location that is also an existing designated liquefaction zone that includes an uninspected aging creek culvert; a site that is within a short distance of a tragic accident that might have been prevented from occurred from happening for a variety of reasons which should inspire this city to take stronger precautions.  

For these reasons, the city should take the time to more thoroughly examine the geo-feasibility of construction of this magnitude at this site before considering permitting. 

3. Water Conservation Issues Have not been Addressed: 

The applicant projects a population of 517 people living in this project. Given 394 bedrooms in the project, a more realistic projection is 827, about a 68% increase over the applicant's projection. If all of those people conserve water (the current standard of 35 gallons per person) that equals over 10 million gallons per year, plus about 4 million gallons used during its construction. None of this has been discussed and there has been no consideration of requiring individual metering. This flies in the face of expert warnings that even if rains occur in December, the drought will not be over, and that extended droughts will occur in California's future. Recent studies show that the depth of the snowpack (not rain) is the most important indicator and that tree-ring studies indicate that the 2015 snowpack is the lowest it has been in 500-years! Planners simply cannot ignore these facts, particularly with a potential 5,000 to 10,000 new residents in our Downtown. This is unfinished business. 

4. Wind Studies are Non-Existent and there are Questions Regarding Open Space Requirements: 

The Wind and Comfort Analysis is dated January 20, 2014 and based on an old design that existed before height was added to the "south shoulder." It basically was concerned with downdraft wind at the pedestrian/street level. The Infill Environmental Checklist repeats much of that analysis, again with the concern focused on street-level impacts. However, these documents state that the only area "potentially subject to a substantial increase in winds that could affect comfort levels would be the rooftop decks of the project itself." It further states that since this is "private space" there would be a "range of options" to "provide shelter" and the impacts are therefore simply dismissed as "less than significant."  

One independent analysis of winds at the highest rooftop could be as high as 85 mph. This goes beyond simply bolting furniture to the floor. How can this be counted as open space for those tenants who don't have private balconies, or even shared in-house community space? No one knows for sure what the number is or the frequency of such winds. Even if the wind speeds are not that high, no one even knows whether the rooftops meet city requirements for only the tenants who have no other open space options. This is unfinished business. 

5. Construction Mitigation for Sensitive Receptors are Incomplete and the proposed Traffic Construction Plan (TCP) is Too Late: 

It is good that the applicant's team has met at last with the BUSD as a sensitive receptor site. I understand there is still concern about the noise level being too high, higher than the level required by State law. That needs to be addressed, but the Berkeley Main Library is also a sensitive receptor site and they have not been consulted. People of all ages, children to seniors, use this site and use it heavily and it is closer to the project site than the High School. What will the noise level be there? This is unfinished business. 

Additionally, it is proposed that a TCP be developed that will include such essential as street and sidewalk closures, traffic diversions, and staging areas. This is to be done in the future and under such strictures as is feasible. Again, it is shocking that the Main Library has not been included as participating in these discussions, but besides that there is still absolutely no indication of where the construction staging area will be located. Where will materials be stored, construction vehicles parked when not in use, where will the large cranes stand? Any of you that were around when the Gaia Building, which is less than half the size of the proposed project, was constructed will remember the extended problems around the staging area for that building. At a minimum, the staging area, and probable potential sidewalk and street closures should be identified along with a time frame, as part of the consideration of the feasibility of constructing such a large building at this particular site. This is unfinished business. 

6. Design Review Should be More Complete: 

The attached items from the Design Review Committee that are listed in your attachment to the Staff Report are far too sketchy. What do they mean? Does ZAB mean to say the design is not important enough to be more sure of the answers to the questions posed by the DRC? While the DRC might tweak the final design, that is not to say that the design must be more exact than it is at this time.  

Even John King, Architectural Critic of the San Francisco Chronicle has called to question this design. Given the prominence of this project, the DRC should be given the chance at another look to flesh out their concerns before approvals are considered. This is unfinished business. 

There are many more things to be said, but with the time constraints to get this letter to you, I will end by saying that the above are six reasons, of possibly many others, that are unfinished business and that should be considered before making your decision regarding permitting. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this.