Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council fails to overturn ZAUB approvals for two 23-story schemes at 2029 University; appeals remain unresolved
Summary
Berkeley council heard appeals of two alternate use permits for 2029 University Avenue (multifamily and student-housing schemes) that sought concessions to waive apprenticeship, health-care and bird-safe glass requirements; after testimony and debate, a motion to deny the appeals failed and the ZAB approvals remain in effect.
The Berkeley City Council considered appeals Feb. 23 of Zoning Adjustments Board approvals for two proposed 23-story schemes at 2029 University Avenue—one multifamily and one student-oriented. Both schemes seek density bonuses (100%) tied to on-site affordable units and requested concessions from the cityHard Hats apprenticeship and health-care requirements as well as a bird-safe glazing standard.
Senior planner Nilu Karamzadegan told council both applications were vested under state procedures and that staff recommended denying the appeals and approving the permits; staff reported the applicantestimated reduction in project costs from the requested concessions at roughly $4,732,000. Appellant Scott Littlehale of the North Coast States Carpenters argued that conceding health-care and apprenticeship requirements would harm worker safety and retention and asked the council to remand the matters to ZAUB for more robust cost documentation.
Applicant counsel and project representatives said the concessions meet the density-bonus statutedefinitions and that the narrow statutory public-health exception to granting concessions was not satisfied in the record; counsel asked the council to follow staffrecommendation. Public comment again featured numerous union voices urging the city to uphold local labor protections, while other commenters supported building housing.
When the council moved to deny the appeals and affirm the ZAUB approvals, the recorded roll call did not produce the required affirmative outcome and the motion failed; staff confirmed that if the council does not take further action the ZAUB decisions will stand. Councilmembers reiterated divergent views: some said the state law appears to compel approval of such concessions and expressed concern about legal liability and the citybudget; others urged developing better factual records and pursuing state-level fixes so local standards are not undercut by density-bonus requests.
The two proposals at 2029 University Avenue remain approved at the ZAUB level unless the council acts at a later date; staff and council members said further legislative clarification at the state level would be appropriate to resolve similar conflicts in the future.
