Council motion to affirm ZAB approval for 10‑story 3000 Shattuck fails after appeals citing contamination and worker safety

A council motion on March 25 to affirm a Zoning Adjustments Board approval for a 10‑story mixed‑use building at 3000 Shattuck Avenue failed on roll call, leaving the ZAB approval in place unless the council reopens the matter within 30 days.

Staff presented the project history and a revised CEQA addendum for a modified 10‑story project that would replace an existing gas station with 166 studio units (including 17 very‑low income units) and roughly 1,000 square feet of commercial space. Staff told council the addendum concluded that no subsequent EIR was necessary and that required conditions of approval—such as soil and groundwater management plans, transportation‑demand management, and construction air‑quality controls—would mitigate identified impacts.

Appellants—represented by neighborhood coalitions and labor unions including East Bay Residents for Responsible Development and LiUNA—urged the council to vacate the ZAB approval and remand the project to staff for more thorough environmental review. They argued the project has materially changed since the 2018 negative declaration, that new nearby projects increase cumulative impacts, and that soil and groundwater sampling and previous closure reports show benzene exceedances of residential screening levels. Appellants also pointed to an indoor air assessment alleging elevated formaldehyde risks and to construction‑period hazards that could affect workers and nearby residents.

Victoria Yant, counsel for LiUNA, and Khalila Fetterman for East Bay Residents said the revised addendum does not resolve substantial questions about air toxics, benzene, cumulative construction emissions and noise, and thus a fair argument exists under CEQA that additional analysis (an MND or EIR) is required.

Applicant counsel countered that the project complies with objective standards and that the Housing Accountability Act (SB 330) restricts the council’s ability to deny or condition the project absent a specific, quantifiable adverse public‑health or safety impact. The applicant also emphasized the project’s provision of 17 very‑low income units and argued the city’s inclusionary housing rules were applied appropriately.

Neighbors and labor representatives pressed the council on multiple fronts during public comment: the narrow sidewalks at Shattuck/Ashby and the lack of a clear loading zone; traffic and pedestrian‑safety risks; cumulative pressure from several nearby projects; and the danger of construction on partially remediated petroleum sites to workers’ health. Several speakers said the developer had threatened to disengage union subcontractors if appeals continued; the council and public asked staff to clarify those claims.

When the council voted, the motion to adopt a resolution affirming the ZAB decision and dismiss the appeals failed on roll call (Yes: Keserwani, Blackaby, Humbert, Mayor Ishii; No: Kaplan, Bartlett; Recused: Grama, O'Keefe, Luna Parra). The city attorney advised that the ZAB determination therefore stands unless the council takes up the item again within the 30‑day window under Berkeley Municipal Code. Several council members signaled ongoing concern about worker safety, environmental remediation requirements and sidewalk/traffic mitigation to be addressed during permit review.

What remains: the ZAB approval remains in place for now. Any future building permits will require a soil and groundwater management plan, oversight from the Regional Water Quality Control Board when tank‑site contamination is present, and enforcement of construction air‑quality controls. The council may choose to re‑take the item within 30 days or pursue changes to objective standards in future zoning updates to address the neighborhood’s systemic concerns.