Berkeley City Council
February 8, 2022

520
>> THAT IS IT.
>> APPRECIATE YOU COMING TONIGHT, ERIN. WE HAVE A SELF MORE PEOPLE THAT RAISED THEIR HANDS. WE'RE THIS A TIGHT TIME LINE HE HERE. LET'S GET THESE LAST FEW PEOPLE IN HERE. SUZY? I NEED TO UNMUTE. KEEP IT TO A MINUTE THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> I'M SUZY BAILEY I LIVE OVER JOAN'S BACK FENCE AND I NEW NUDGE THESE PROJECTS. I HADN'T TALKED TO JOAN ABOUT IT. I DON'T KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT THOSE. WHEN I LOOKED, I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M A DAUGHTER OF TWO ARCHITECTS. I GROUP UP WITH ARCHITECTURE AROUND ME. MY MOTHER WAS EDITOR OF AN NATIONALLY PUBLISHED

ARCHITECTURAL MAGAZINE SO I HAVE A BACK GROUND OF LOOKING AT THINGS. WHEN I LOOKED AT THE VIEW OF THE TWO UNITS, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE BUILDERS, IT LOOKED REALLY NICE. I'VE BEEN IN JOAN'S HOUSE WHEN IT WAS FOR SALE. I TOOK ONE LOOK AT THE

PICTURE SHE SHOWED OF WHAT SHE SAW OUT OF HER LIVING ROOM AND I WAS ABSOLUTELY HORRIFIED. THAT REALLY DOES IMPACT HER LIFE. AND HER, WHAT SHE LOOKS AT. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT HERE TO TAKE SIDES. I'M JUST SAYING HOW I THOUGHT, I'M JUST SHOCKED. I WAS JUST SHOCKED TO SEE WHAT IT DID TO HER VIEW OF HER --.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING IN AND EXPRESSING YOUR VIEWS TONIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT TO TOUCH ON? >> NO. THAT IS IT.

521
>> THANK YOU.
>> I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD TO TALK TO HER. I REALLY DO.

IF THAT HAD BEEN ME, I -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE. I WOULD HAVE BEEN SO UPSET.
>> THANK YOU. MONA HALIBEE?
>> YES. HI. I LIVE AT 1157 SO I'M THE HOUSE THAT IS ADJACENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MR. SCOTT. I AM SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF MATT AND GINA'S APPLICATION. I'M NOT IMPACTED BY THEIR STRUCTURE. THE

STRUCTURES ARE FAR ENOUGH IN THE BACK THAT THEY LINE UP WITH MY SIDE GARDEN. AND MY DECK. MY UPSTAIRS DECK. SO I'M IN THE

IMPACTED BUT I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF MATT AND GENA, BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO JUST SAY ABOUT THEIR CHARACTER. THAT I FIND THEM TO

BE EXTREMELY RESPECTFUL AND HELPFUL WHENEVER THEY'VE BEEN ANY NEED THEY'RE RIGHT THERE. THEY'RE VERY THOUGHTFUL WHEN THEY MAKE ANY DECISIONS AND SO FAR, I HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THEIR CHARACTER. AND YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY THIS IS IMPACTING JOAN. AND SHE IS MY NEIGHBOR ON THE EASTERN SIDE. AND I HOPE THAT THIS CAN BE RESOLVED BUT I

AM SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF MATT AND GINA'S APPLICATION AND I HOPE IT CAN BE APPROVED. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING.
>> MAY BY PROCEED WITH THE RESPONSE? OR DO WE NEED TO --.

522
>> YES. WE HAVE AS LONG AS IT'S DONE BEFORE 9:00. THAT PORTION DONE BEFORE 9:00.
>> SOUNDS GOOD. THEN, YOU THOUGH WE'LL HOLD COMMENTS FROM THIS COMMISSION. WE'LL DOES APPLICANT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
>> HI, THERE.
>> CAN I GO?
>> SURE.
>> TWO MINUTES I SHOULD LET YOU KNOW, GINA.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT LAEL PUTS UP THE IMAGE THAT I GAVE HER BEFORE STARTING.
>> ALLISON IF YOU CAN HOLD UP THE TIMER THAT WILL BE GREAT. >> I WILL DO THAT RIGHT NOW. GINA, CAN YOU REMIND ME WHICH ONE? I RECEIVED A COUPLE THINGS FROM YOU GUYS? .
>> THE SIX NEIGHBORS THAT--THERE WE GO.
>> SHOULD BE UP.
>> OKAY. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT HERE IN, THIS DISCUSSION, WHY DIDN'T WE APPROACH JOAN? FROM THE GET GO, MATT AND I WERE

GARDENING WHEN JOAN APPROACHED US FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME AND

IMMEDIATELY ASKED US TO REMOVE OUR VERY OLD APPLE TREE NOT ENCROACHING ON HER PROPERTY. SO THAT WAS A BAD START. IT WAS,

523

AND THIS PAST TUESDAY, I RECEIVED NOTICE ON TUESDAY IF NEIGHBORS

WERE TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF OUR TWO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN WRITING, THEIR LETTERS WERE DUE THAT DAY. EACH OF THE SIX

HOUSEHOLDS I SPOKE TO THAT AFTERNOON E-MAILED LETTERS TO JOINING

ADJUSTMENT BOARD IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF OUR ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS. INCLUDING THREE NEIGHBORS WHO SHARE A FENCE LINE WITH JOAN. ONE LIVES ACROSS THE STREET FROM HER AND 2 ACROSS THE STREET FROM US. IT'S SPEAKING WITH JOAN NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST, I HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF JOAN'S CHARACTER. THE

NEIGHBOR DESCRIBED VARIOUS SITUATIONS BROUGHT ON MY JOAN THAT

HER AND OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE FACED WHEN SHE, HERSELF HAD PERSONALLY REACHED HER LIMIT WITH JOAN. JOAN HAD CALLED HER DIRECTLY AND REQUESTED HER SON CELL PHONE NUMBER. THE REASON

BEING THAT HER ADULT SON WHO LIVES IN THE HOME AND HAS HEALTH CONDITIONS LEAVES HIS LIGHT ON PAST JOAN'S BED TIME. JOAN WANTS

TO BE ABLE TO CALL HIM TO HAVE HIM TURN OFF A PED ROOM LIGHT SO AS NOT TO INCONVENIENCE HER. I'M SHARING THIS SENSITIVE

INFORMATION BECAUSE WE NEED TO SHINE LINE ON JOAN'S OVERREACHING REQUEST. I'D LIKE TO REMIND THE BOARD AND PUBLIC, LIKE JOAN'S

NEIGHBOR'S SON WHO HAS EVERY RIGHT TO GO TO SLEEP AND TURN OFF A

LIGHT WHEN DESIRED, WE ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT, THE LEGAL RIGHT TO

ADD HABITABLE SPACE TO OUR LAND THE WAY WE V OUR ACCESSORY

BUILDINGS MEET EVERY APPLICABLE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THE THREE SUPPORTING

524

LETTERS IN FAVOR OF JOAN'S REQUEST HAVE FIVE FEET OF HEIGHT

REMOVED FROM MY ART STUDIO MAKING IT UNINHABITABLE ARE FROM BERKELEY RESIDENTS AS FAR AS A 35 MINUTE WALK TO BONITA REVENUE.

NOT ONE OF HER SUPPORTING LETTERS ARE FROM OUR BLOCK OR HERS. >> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING TO GIVE THE

CAPTIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK AND GIVE EVERYONE HERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK. >> IS MATT ABLE TO REBUT?
>> NO. YOU HAD TWO MINUTES FOR TWO OF YOU.
>> OKAY.
>> SO, THE, IT'S 8:48. PLAN ON COMING BACK PROMPTLY A FEW MINUTES BEFORE 9:00 TO START AT 9:00 PROMPTLY. EVERYONE YOU GO, TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU.
>> I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE ARCHITECTS FOR THEIR THOUGHTS. I THINK

MOVING THIS BACK UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE APPLICANTS IF WE GO THAT

ROUTE WOULD ADD ANOTHER COST TO THEM ON TOP OF THE COSTS THEY'VE

ALREADY INCURRED BUT COST IS ALSO SOMETHING NOT SOMETHING IN WHICH WE DO OR SHOULD BASE OUR DECISIONS. I THINK MOVING

SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN TAKING IT APART THAT WOULD TAKE EXCAVATION. I WOULD SUPPORT SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TONIGHT.

525
>> IF I MAY SAY SOMETHING, IGOR MENTIONED COMPROMISE. I WANT TO

MENTION THAT THE APPLICANTS DID SEND ME SOMETHING PRIOR TO THE HEARING. I FRANKLY HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY BUT I BELIEVE IT INCLUDES SOMETHING IN REGARDS TO COMPROMISE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT NOW LET ME KNOW.
>> NOW WOULD BE GOOD POINT FOR IMPACT. SHOSHANA WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST?
>> I'D LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST.
>> GO FOR IT. I HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT ABOUT THAT. SO MY ORIGINAL

COMMENT WAS I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE AND STAFF, PLEASE CORRECT

ME IF I'M WRONG BECAUSE I'M GOING TO SAY WHAT A THINK IS THE

STANDARD WE SHOULD BE USING TO DECIDE THIS AND IT'S YOUR GUYS' JOB TO SET US STRAIGHT ON THIS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS FOR A CASE

LIKE THIS WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT AS IF IT'S NOT BEEN BUILT, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT. WE NEED TO IMAGINE

THIS WAS A PLAN WE'RE LOOKING AT AND DECIDE IF IT'S A GOOD PLAN OR NOT. AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE AS ZONING COMMISSIONERS

REALLY TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY BECAUSE WE CAN'T LET THE FACT THAT

SOMEBODY BUILT SOMETHING WITHOUT A PERMIT MAKE IT HARDER TO SAY NO. THAT'S NOT A GOOD INCENTIVE STRUCTURE AND WE NEED TO HOLD THIS AS THE SAME STANDARD AS SOMETHING PROPOSED. THIS IS OUR PROPOSAL, HOW ABOUT THIS. WE NOT SHOULD WE HAVE THEM MOVE IT, IT

SOUNDS EXPENSIVE AND I WANT TO SECOND WHAT IGOR SAID COST SHOULD

526

BE IRRELEVANT AND STAFF CORRECT ME IF THAT'S NOT RIGHT BUT HOW I'VE VIEWED THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AFTER THE PROJECT ENFORCEMENT. >> AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS I TEND TO REFER TO IT'S AN APPLICATION TO LEGALIZE THE APPROVAL. AND STAFF IN CONSULTATION BASED ANALYSIS ON.
>> YOU OF COURSE PHRASED EVERYTHING IN THE APPROPRIATE WAY AND

WE LOOKED AT THE PICTURES IT LOOKS SO NICE IT'S HARD TO QUESTION IT BUT WE CAN'T LET THAT INFLUENCE OUR DECISION.
>> I UNDERSTAND AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING UP THAT POINT, YES.
>> THANK YOU. SO THAT'S MY FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT POINT. I WANT TO DECIDE THIS ON THE RIGHT BASIS. SECOND THOUGH I WANT TO

ACKNOWLEDGE INSTEAD OF IMAGINING WHAT THE IMPACT COULD BE WE HAVE A STRONG SENSE OF WHAT THE IMPACT IS. WE DON'T HAVE TO SPECULATE. SO THAT IS DIFFERENT AND IT'S TOTALLY FINE TO SAY

THIS DID IMPACT THE NEIGHBOR AND I THINK IT'S OKAY TO USE THAT AS EVIDENCE IN OUR DECISION. I BELIEVE THIS HAS NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBOR. I'M GOING TO ECHO WHAT CARRIE SAID IT'S ALARMING AND THEY CAN SEE IT. THESE ARE ALL THINGS IF I COULD

IMAGINE THEY WOULD HAVE IMPACTED MY DECISION SO I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. I ALSO WANT TO SECOND WHAT IGOR

SAID AND HE SAID I SAID THIS THOUGH I HAVEN'T YET, YOU DID

CORRECTLY READ MY MIND, IGOR WHICH IS I AM PRETTY DISAPPOINTED

527
THAT THE NEIGHBORS WEREN'T CONSULTED. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN CONSIDER IMPACT TO NEIGHBORS WITHOUT CONSULTING THEM. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. THE FACT THAT WAS STATED SO MANY TIMES

IN THE APPLICANT LETTER AND STATEMENT SEEMS DISINGENUOUS AND OBJECT TO THAT. I WISH THEY WOULD HAVE ADMITTED THEY DIDN'T TALK TO THE NEIGHBOR AND DIDN'T REALIZE THE IMPACT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT

THE IMAGINED HAPPENED BUT THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE

THEY DIDN'T TAKE INTO COUNTY THE IMPACT OF THE NEIGHBOR BECAUSE THEY DID NOT TALK TO THE NEIGHBOR. THAT IS A BIG PROBLEM FOR ME AND I TALKED MORE THAN I USUALLY DO. I'M SORRY. THE LAST THING,

REGARDING COMPROMISE, I'LL HEAR IT BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS

WASN'T BROUGHT UP BY THE APPLICANT INSTEAD OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE

PEOPLE THEY ARE AND WHAT A BAD PERSON THE NEIGHBOR IS WHICH IS AS IGOR STATED CORRECTLY, IRRELEVANT. I'M RESENTFUL WE DIDN'T HEAR THINGS WHEN THE TIME WAS DURING THE APPLICANT STATEMENT. IF WE WANT TO HEAR IT NOW, FINE. OVER. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. I'M DONE.
>> THANK YOU, SHOSHANA FOR ALL THE COMMENTS. DEBBIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR THE COMPROMISE OFFER OR WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> I'LL HEAR THE COMPROMISE OFFER, FIRST. AS LONG AS YOU COME BACK TO ME, PLEASE. S
>> THIS IS THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS SENT. THERE ARE MORE

NOTIFICATION AND THE TREES REMOVED AND DISCUSSION OF A HEDGE A

528
PROPOSED HEDGE. LET ME PUT THIS IN A WAY THAT'S HOPEFULLY MORE VISUAL. I BELIEVE THIS IS A MARK UP PHOTO SHOWING THE HEDGE WAS INSTALLED OR PLANTED. SORRY, IT'S NOT CONSTRUCTION. ANOTHER PHOTO THERE'S THE DISCUSSION OF HEDGES AND PROPOSED HEDGE. THE GREEN SHOWED A PROPOSED HEDGE. THIS IS THE DOCUMENT SENT TO ME.

DEBBIE.
>> FIRST, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM HAVING SUBMITTED AN

APPLICATION FOR AN AUP THAT THE NEIGHBOR SIGNED OFF WHO SAW THE PLANS AND THERE'S BEEN A YELLOW SIGN OUT. CAN STAFF CONFIRM? >> AS THE PROJECT STARTED AS A CODE ENFORCEMENT PLACE REPORTED

BY THE NEIGHBOR AND FRANKLY WITH THE DIFFERENT PROTOCOLS

EMPLOYED DURING COVID TO KEEP UP THE IMPORTANT NEIGHBOR

NOTIFICATION THAT HAS BECOME BASICALLY TRANSITION WITH EVERY PROJECT. WITH THIS PROJECT BECAUSE WE WERE BRINGING IT TO THE

ZONING BOARD THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED WERE INFORMED

OR AWARE OF THE PROJECT FROM THE BEGINNING AND THE STRUCTURES DO

EXIST, WE ACTUALLY DID NOT USE CONVENTIONAL POST CARDS OR NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION AS THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY RECOVERS. THAT'S NOT REQUIRED BY CODE.
>> OKAY.
>> THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. SO THE OTHER THING IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT

THIS DRAWING, YOU LOOK AT THE SHADOW STUDY AND THEN LOOK AT THE

PLAN SHEET FIRST PAGE, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THESE TWO STRUCTURES

529
AND 25 STODDARD WAY, YOU SEE THE STREET LINE THERE BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BUILDING IS NOT A STRAIGHT LINE LIKE THAT. IT'S STEPPED BACK TWICE. SO IF YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE YOU HAD

WITH THE HEDGES, SO THERE IS ONE WINDOW WHERE THEY SHOWED THE GLARE. CAN SOMEONE CLARIFY FOR ME WHAT WINDOW THAT WAS TAKEN FROM. WAS THAT HER LIVING ROOM, BREAKFAST ROOM, DINING ROOM. >> I WILL BRING THAT UP.
>> BELIEVE THAT'S THE LIVING ROOM.
>> IT SAYS LIVING ROOM.
>> THERE YOU GO.
>> THE LIVING ROOM SEES THE GLARE FROM WHICH OF THE STRUCTURES? >> THE SECOND STRUCTURE.
>> THE ART STUDIO.
>> STRUCTURE 1.
>> IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THAT PHOTO OF THE GLARE AND THEN GO TO

THE SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS THE HEDGE PROPOSED HEDGE, GO DOWN ONE PAGE, KEEP GOING. DO YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS LR. THOSE

PHOTOS WERE TAKEN JUST INSIDE THE LR AND LOOK OUT ON TO PREEXISTING HEDGES AT 25 STODDARD WAY AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING

IS IN BETWEEN OUR TWO UNITS WHICH ARE TE BLACK BOXES ON THE FAR

530

SCREEN LEFT, WE WOULD GET THE HEDGE TO GET RID OF THE GLARE SO IT DIDN'T SHINE IN THE PROPERTY. THE DRAWING NOT TO SCALE. >> BUT IT'S BETTER ON THE PLANS WHICH SHOWS ONE STRAIGHT LINE.

THE BUILDING IS NOT ONE STRAIGHT LINE. THIS IS HELPFUL BECAUSE

THERE'S OTHER SPACE ON THE PROPERTY FROM THE KITCHEN AND I

ASSUME THE EATING ROOM IS IN THE KITCHEN SHE WAS REFERRING TO AND THE ISSUE WAS THE LIVING ROOM. YOUR PROPOSAL IS HEDGE TO STOP THE GLARE, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM YOU, DEBRA?
>> NO, I'LL KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT RIGHT NOW, THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TOWARDS SOME KIND OF A MOTION. I SEE HER HAND UP. ANYTHING TO RECOGNIZE?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WANTED TO APOLOGIZE TO COMMISSIONER SANDERSON FOR BRIEFLY INTERRUPTING.
>> THAT'S OKAY. I DID WANT TO ECHO STATEMENT THAT COMMISSIONER'S

COLLEAGUES HAVE ALREADY STATED IT'S HARD TO ASSUME INTENTION IN

A QUASI-LEGAL BODY LIKE THIS IT'S NOT OBJECTIVE I AGREE WITH THE

THAT STATEMENT WE SHOULD LOOK IN THE IMPACT MEASURE AND I THINK

IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH NEIGHBORS AND

531

GENERALLY PROJECTS THAT DO ENSURE AND I DON'T HAVE THE

TECHNOLOGY KNOWLEDGE TO SUGGEST DIFFERENT STRUCTURAL PLANS AND

KEEP INTO ACCOUNT THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERN SO I'D PREFER A MOTION TO A CONTINUANCE AND I'D LIKE TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.
>> THANK YOU. BEFORE THE CHAIR STARTS I'D LIKE TO OFFER MY THOUGHTS ON THIS. MY ORIGINAL -- I AGREE FIRST WITH THE

PRINCIPLE AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO USE YOUR IMAGINATION TO SAY,

OKAY, WHAT IF THIS CAME BEFORE US WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF AND IT WASN'T BUILT YET. WOULD WE APPROVE IT? IT DOES MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING. IT'S NOT A HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. THERE'S ADJUSTMENTS FOR IT WOULD WE

ASK THAT THEY CONSIDER RELOCATION AND MODIFICATION AND WERE IT

BEFORE US AT THE SAME TIME, WE DO HAVE INSTEAD OF STORY POLLS,

ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS ILLUSTRATING IMPACTS AND I AGREE WITH CARRIE

THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ROOF WITH THE STARTLING GLARE THOUGH

ACKNOWLEDGES IT'S ONLY A BRIEF PORTION OF THE DAY IS QUITE

STARTLING AND A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBOR, WE'D WANT TO

MITIGATE AT THE VERY LEAST AS WE'VE HISTORICALLY DONE BY

DEMANDING REQUIRING THAT ROOF BE PAINTED WITH A NON-REFLECTIVE PAINT. AS THE SOMETHING THAT I CERTAINLY WOULD SUPPORT IN MY IMAGINATION WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE. HERE'S THE QUESTION ABOUT THE

LOCATION OF THESE BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY, I'M NOT
PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT STRUCTURE 2 WHICH IS A CONSIDERABLE

DISTANCE FROM THE KITCHEN BUT I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE VIEW OF

532
THE ROOF IN THE LIVING ROOM. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT VIEW FOR THE NEIGHBOR. I AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHARACTER OR JUST ABOUT

WHAT NEIGHBORS OUGHT TO DO AND WE SOMETIMES HAVE TO STEP IN AND DO IT ON BEHALF OF THEY CAN'T SEE EYE TO EYE. I WAS CONSIDERING

ASKING THAT STRUCTURE ONE THE ART STUDIO THE ONE ON THE NORTH NEAR 1147 GRIZZLY PEAK BE PULLED BACK CLOSER TO THE HOUSE. THE

IRONY IS IT WOULD MAKE THE CONDITION WORSE BECAUSE OF THE HEDGES. I WAS THINKING TO COMPEL THEM AND TO MAKE IT LESS BAD IN

MY OPINION WOULD BE IF IT MOVED TOWARDS THE NEIGHBORS HOUSE AND DIDN'T HAVE TO RELY ON FUTURE HEDGES. THAT'S WHY I ASK THE

QUESTION BECAUSE THAT'S THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE ASKED TO THE NEIGHBOR IN THE NORTH WOULD HAVE COME TO US BEFORE IT WAS BUILT.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACT ONE NEIGHBOR OBJECTS TO FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER NEIGHBOR. IT'S SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE

YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER EITHER FOR TONIGHT, PROMOTION, IF YOU WISH

FOR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR WE COULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO

CONSIDER WAYS OF MITIGATING THE PARTICULAR NOTORIOUS PHOTO BROUGHT FORTH. THAT'S THE ONE THAT DISTURBED ME THE MOST TOO.

BESIDES PLANNING A HEALTH WHICH WILL TAKE A WHILE TO GROW AND MAY NEVER MATURE TO DO THE JOB. I THINK WE HAVE OTHER

CONSIDERATIONS AND WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE MOVING FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU, CHARLES. I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THE MOTION DOHEE JUST MADE THE EXACT MOTION I WAS ABOUT TO MAKE. THANK YOU,

533
DOHEE. I WOULD NOT VOTE APPROVE THIS AS-IS WERE IT COME BEFORE US AS A PLAN. CHARLES HAD HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS JUST NOW. I'M NOT

AN ARCHITECT AND MORE IMPORTANTLY I DON'T HAVE A TASTE FOR

REDESIGNING PROJECTS IN THIS FORMAT WHICH IS WHY CONTINUANCE IS THE BEST IDEA. NOT CLOSED MINDED TO VOTING FOR A MOTION THAT HAS

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT WOULD GUARANTEE NO IMPACT TO THE

NEIGHBOR BUT I PERSONALLY FIND A CONTINUANCE, LETTING THE

APPLICANT REDESIGN IT IN CONSULTATION WITH THE NEIGHBOR AND

COMING BACK TO US WITH A MODIFIED PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE IMPACTS IS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. SO APPLICANT IF THAT'S

WHAT WE DO TODAY, YOU JUST GOT SOME PRE ADVICE FROM AN
EXPERIENCED ARCHITECT. THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. YOU CAN CONSULT WITH

YOUR OWN AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK BUT I THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO GO

IS CONTINUING POSSIBLY OFF CALENDAR BUT I THINK WE SHOULD

CONTINUE IT AND LOOK AT A PROPOSAL THAT ACTUALLY ADDRESSES THESE CONCERNS.
>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, CARRIE, YOUR HAND IS UP.
>> THANK YOU, CHARLES FOR YOUR UNPAID ADVICE. YOU SAID SOMETHING

THIS RUNG A BELL WITH ME WHICH IS IF THERE WERE NO BUILDING AND WERE COMING TO US FOR A PERMIT WE'D REQUIRED STORY POLLS. THE STORY POLLS WOULD TELL THE STORY. NOT AS WELL AS HAVING THE

BUILDINGS MAYBE BUT THEY WOULD ALLOW US TO CONSIDER WHERE ELSE

534
ON THE SITE WOULD BE LESS OF A DETRIMENT. AND FOR ME THE NO-

BRAINER WAS TO PUT BOTH BUILDINGS ADJACENT TO THE STONE PATIO

BECAUSE THEN THEY COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING THE MEETING SPACE OUT THERE IN FRONT OF THEM. HONESTLY IF WE'RE STARTING

THIS PROPERLY WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE STORY POLLS AND WOULD HAVE

HAD A DISCUSSION ON WHAT THE ROOF LINE OF THE BUILDINGS WOULD

LIKE AND WHERE THEY WOULD BE PLACED AND THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING

FOR IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD REMOVE THE DETRIMENT ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THE STRUCTURES AND I WON'T EVEN SPEAK -- SORRY. I WANT TO SAY ONE LAST THING. BACK IN THE DAY WHEN WE USED TO MEET IN

PERSON, I HAD THIS LITTLE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE MODEL I WOULD PUT IN FRONT OF ME WHENEVER WE HAD SOMETHING WITH A VIEW IMPACT. AND

THIS ALTHOUGH MAY NOT HAVE A VIEW OF THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE,

THIS NEIGHBOR SPEAKS OF BEING ABLE TO THE LIGHT THAT COMES FROM THE WEST AND THE SUN SET. AND WOULD HAVE HAD THIS COME TO US FOR A PERMIT. THAT'S ALL. THOSE ARE PROTECTED IN OUR GENERAL PLAN. >> THANK YOU FOR ALL THE COMMENTS. I HAVE ONE MORE HAND RAISED, DEBBIE.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE I AM ON CONTINUING IT BUT THERE'S AN

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PLANS AND THE PHOTO THAT I CANNOT RECONCILE IN MY MIND VISUALLY. IF THIS COMES BACK, WHEN YOU LOOK

AT THE AERIAL PHOTO OR THE SHADOW STUDIES, ACCORDING TO THE

AERIAL PHOTO THE STRUCTURE OF THE EXERCISE STUDIO IS -- I'M

535

USING MY HANDS WHICH NO ONE CAN SEE, THE EXERCISE STUDIO IS ACROSS FROM THE LIVING ROOM AND THE ART STUDIO IS FURTHER OVER.

SOMETHING IS NOT ADDING UP. THE PICTURE APPEARS TO SAY IT'S

LOOKING AT THE ART STUDIO BUT IN THE SHADOW STUDY, THE ART STUDIO IS QUITE A BIT A WAYS FROM THE LIVING ROOM. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE'S SOME -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S OFF.
>> CAN I LOOK AT FOR A SECOND.
>> I DON'T WANT TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT LOOKS LIKE

WE'LL BE CONTINUING AND WE CAN SPEAK TO THAT IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT TONIGHT.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAD TO SAY. I FIND IT INCONSISTENT. I'M DONE. >> THANK YOU. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY PART OF THE COMMISSION TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT. WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE IT TO GIVE THE

APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH THE NEIGHBOR AND WORK

WITH THE NEIGHBOR AND SEE IF SOME POSITIVE OUTCOME CAN COME OF THAT. WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE SINCE THERE'S NO OTHER MOTIONS ON THE FLOOR AND SEE WHERE WE STAND.
>> CAN WE CLARIFY IF THIS IS OFF CALENDAR OR TO DATE CERTAIN? >> WHO MADE THE MOTION?
>> I DID.

536
>> DO YOU PREFER TO THIS TO BE A DATE CERTAIN OR A MONTH OUT OR

TWO MONTHS OUT OR A DATE WHEN THE APPLICANT IS PREPARED TO RETURN? BY ME AS THE MOTION MAKER.
>> IF YOU HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MOTION MAKER ON THAT -- WE'D LOVE TO HEAR THEM.
>> I WANTED TO GIVE SPACE TO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY HAD AGREEMENTS. I'M FINE WITH IT BEING OFF CALENDAR.
>> IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ASK FOR THE NEW HEARING AND >> I AGREE.
>> THAT'S THE MOTION BEFORE US. GOOD CAN WE TAKE ROLL CALL. >> CAN YOU MAKE AN AMENDMENT.
>> YOU CAN OFFER ONE.
>> I'D LIKE TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT THAT IT NOT BE PUT OFF

CALENDAR BUT ON CALENDAR FOR THE REASON THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE

WORKED UP, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO -- IF IT'S ON CALENDAR THEN THERE

IS AN INCENTIVE FOR EVERYONE TO WORK TOGETHER AND NOT WAIT AND WAIT AND WAIT AND CONTINUE IT ON. I WOULD PREFER IT BE ON

CALENDAR TO A DATE THAT IS REASONABLE AND THERE IS ROOM FOR

NEGOTIATOR I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED NEGOTIATION

WITH THESE NEIGHBORS BUT I CAN SEE WHY HAVING THE APPLICANT AND THE OCCUPANT TALKING DIRECTLY MAY BE DIFFICULT.

537
>> MEDIATE LAND USE FOR SMALL PROJECTS AND PICK A DATE CERTAIN

SIX WEEKS TO TWO MONTHS AWAY SO WE GET SOME CLOSURE ON THIS AND

BOTH PARTIES KNOW THEY HAVE TO TALK TO EACH OTHER AND CAN'T JUST WAIT AROUND.
>> IS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION THE TWO PARTIES AGREE TO

MEDIATION --
>> WE CAN'T FORCE THEM TO.
>> THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION, DATE CERTAIN TWO MONTHS AND

CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF USING A MEDIATOR TO FIND SOME

RESOLUTION AND THEN WHEN IT COMES BACK, WE NEED SOME
CLARIFICATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THESE TWO BUILDINGS TO 25 STODDARD.
>> TO BE CLEAR, THE AMENDMENT TO YOUR RESOLUTION WOULD BE DATE

CERTAIN OF TWO MONTHS FROM TODAY THEY WOULD COME BACK AND THE

RECOMMENDATION IS SEEK MEDIATION BUT NOT A REQUIREMENT AND THE

MATERIALS THAT WE REVIEWED DO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE RENDERING OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE MALCONTENT NEIGHBOR WITH THE STRUCTURES.

IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU AS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION?
>> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO STICK WITH THEM BUT INCLUDE THOSE CONDITIONS OF MAKING SURE THEY MEDIATE WITH EACH OTHER? >> WE CAN'T MAKE SURE THEY MEET.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE SECONDER.

538
>> OKAY.
>> SHOSHANA WHAT'S WERE OPINION?
>> I AGREE WITH DEBRA AND I WASN'T THINKING ABOUT THIS CLEARLY SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT UP AND CHANGED MY MIND. HERE'S MY THINKING AND TELL ME IF YOU AGREE OR NOT. NORMALLY, WHEN A

PROJECT HAS YET TO BE BUILD WHAT IS WHAT WE'RE IMAGINING THAT'S

HAPPENING THERE'S A STRONG INCENTIVE FOR THE APPLICANT TO MOVE

FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET THEIR PROJECT BUILT. HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE THE PROJECT'S ALREADY BUILT, THEIR INCENTIVE IS TO DRAG IT OUT.

THEY'RE NOT EAGER TO SPEND THIS MONEY THEY'LL HAVE TO SPEND TO MOVE IT OR ALTER IT IN SOME WAY. SO IN ALL THAT TIME THAT

THEY'RE HAVING THIS EXISTING STRUCTURES IN PLACE, THE NEIGHBOR IS BEING IMPACTED.
>> IT COULD BE 2092.
>> I THINK BECAUSE OF THE SPECIFIC FACT OF THIS CASE WE SHOULD

PUT PRESSURE ON THE APPLICANT TO MAKE A DECISION SOONER AND TWO

MONTHS SEEMS REASONABLE AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK?
>> THANK YOU, SHOSHANA AND DEBRA FOR PROVIDING YOUR THOUGHTS. I DO WANT CONTINUANCE BUT WITH A BIT SURE THE BEST ROUTE. I'M AMENABLE TO BRINGING IT TO CALENDAR. I THINK OCTOBER 14 MAY BE

539
TOO SOON BECAUSE WE'LL REBOUND TO NOTICE THAT IN A COUPLE WEEKS.

THAT MEANS OCTOBER 28 AND THERE'S NO MEETINGS IN NOVEMBER AND WE HAVE ONE MEETING IN DECEMBER ON DECEMBER 9TH. IF YEAR TRYING TO MEET DECEMBER 9 IS PROBABLY THE --
>> OOMPH.
>> SAY THE DATES AGAIN.
>> OCTOBER 28 OR DECEMBER 9.
>> THANK YOU. DEBRA, YOU'RE THE PRO. WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> I THINK WE HAVE TO GO TO THE DECEMBER MEETING AS MUCH AS I'D

LIKE CLOSURE ON THIS SOONER BUT IF THERE'S NO MEETING IN NOVEMBER, I THINK OCTOBER'S TOO SOON.
>> I AGREE.
>> I KNOW WE HAVE A TIME CRUNCH AND I LOOKED AT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND YARD AND ACTUALLY IT'S REALLY HELPFUL. IT HAS ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS ON IT. WE WERE GIVEN ATTACHMENT NUMBER TWO, 1 OF 15 AND -- IT'S NOT RIGHT.
>> AS LONG AS WE'RE ASKING SINCE DEBRA BROUGHT IT UP, THANK YOU

VERY MUCH, CAN WE HAVE A PLAN FOR THE NEIGHBORING HARD AND STRUCTURES SO WE KNOW, APPLES ARE APPLES.
>> I THINK THAT'S A CONDITION OF THIS MOTION.

540
>> SORRY, I WAS LOOKING AT GOOGLE MAPS. I SHOULD DO MY JOB.

LET'S CLOSE IT OUT TO MOVE ON.
>> DOUGH WE HAVE CLARIFICATION NOVEMBER VERSUS DECEMBER. >> THIS IS FOR 1151 GRIZZLY PEAK TO CONTINUE TO 12/9 WITH THE

RECOMMENDATION THE APPLICANT AND NEIGHBOR SEEK MEDIATION AND

THAT THEY CLARIFY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STRUCTURES AND PROVIDE MORE ACCURATE PLANS.
>> CORRECT.
>> BOARD MEMBER OLSON.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER DUFFY.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER GAFFNEY, YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER SANDERSON.
>> YES. BOARD MEMBER KIM.
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR O'KEEFE.
>> AND CHAIRPERSON.
>> YES.

541
>> THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS CAN HAVE

A MEETING OF THE MINDS AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS AND WE'LL SEE YOU DECEMBER 9.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> YOUR WELCOME. YOU'LL GET MORE OF IT IN A FEW MONTHS. LET'S GO

TO OUR NEXT ITEM THEN, LAST ITEM FOR TONIGHT THOUGH WE HAVE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES AS WELL, THIS IS 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE AND WHO IS OUR PLANNER?
>> GIVE US A SUMMARY OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.
>> GOOD EVENING. I'LL SHARE MY SCREEN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS MY SCREEN SHARING?
>> YES.
>> OKAY. GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS. THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU IS AT 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE. IT IS IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R1 AND MAJORITY OF THE SURROUNDING USE RESIDENTIAL. THE

AVENUE AND COLLEGE AVENUE ARE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY. THE MEDICAL CENTER IS ONE BLOCK WEST TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PROJECT IS --
>> I WASN'T AWARE THIS IS AS CLOSE TO MY HOUSE AS IT IS. I'M REMOVING MYSELF FROM THE DISCUSSION. SHOSHANA, YOU'RE IN CHARGE. >> OKAY. COOL.

542
>> I'M GOING TO MUTE MYSELF.
>> I'LL MOVE YOU BACK AS AN ATTENDEE.
>> IT'S A GOOD THING TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS ONE CLOSE TO MY HOUSE BUT I HAD NO AWARENESS OF IT.
>> SHOSHANA CAN YOU TEXT ME WHEN YOU'RE READY FOR ME TO COME BACK?
>> I WILL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, CHARLES. ANYWAY, LONG STORY SHORT, IT DIDN'T SEEM

TO MATTER BUT I RECUSED MYSELF AND SOMEONE CUT DOWN A TREE AND I

COULD SEE IT AND GLAD I PART OF THE IT BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INAPPROPRIATE. IT'S AN IMPORTANT ROLE WE HAVE. STAFF REPORT.
>> OKAY. THE MONTH IS THE ADDITIONAL OF 170 SQUARE FOOT THIRD FLOOR BALCONY SO THE EXISTING FAMILY DWELLING. A USE PERMIT IS

REQUIRED BECAUSE THE ADDITION IS ON A SITE NON-CONFORMING FOR

LOT COVERAGE AND AN AUP IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE ADDITION IS OVER 14 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE EXISTING LOT COVERAGE IS AT 43% WHICH IS OVER THE ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT BY 3%.

HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED BALCONY WOULD NOT [INDISCERNIBLE] THE BUILDING HEIGHT. IT WOULD BE LOCKED APPROXIMATELY 16 FEET ABOVE GRADE AND THE GUARDRAIL. THIS WOULD INCREASE THE OVERALL HEIGHT

543
OF THIS PORTION OF THE BUILDING TO APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET AND THAT'S TOO THE TOP OF THE RAILING. THE BALCONY WOULD BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE REQUIRED THE REAR AND SETBACK. NOTE THE AVERAGE HEIGHT OF THE DWELLING IS 22'3". THIS AVERAGE HEIGHT CAN BE INCREASED TO A MAXIMUM OF 35 FEET IN THE ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN AUP. SINCE THE PROPOSED BALCONY WOULD BE LOCATED OUTSIDE ALL THE

REQUIRED SETBACKS AND SEPARATED FROM THE CLOSEST NEIGHBOR PROPERTY AT 2954 HILLEGASS AVENUE BY APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET, IT'S

NOT EXPECTED TO CREATE DETRIMENTAL IMPACT TO PRIVACY OF THE NEIGHBORING DWELLINGS. THOUGH THE ADDITION WOULD INCREASE THE

HEIGHT OF THE BUILD REAR, THE ROOF LINE WOULD BE LOWER THAN THE

DWELLING ROOF LINE AND WITHOUT NOT IMPACT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OR

EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT AND SUNLIGHT AND AIR AND IMPACT TO

SURROUNDING PROPERTY DUE TO THE PROJECT WOULD NOT BE
DETRIMENTAL. BECAUSE OF THE PROJECT'S CONSISTENCY WITH THE

ZONING ORDINANCE AND GENERAL PLAN AND MINIMAL IMPACT ON

SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, STAFF RECOMMEND THE ZONING ADJUST BOARD APPROVE THIS WITH THE PLANS AND CONDITIONS. I BELIEVE THE ARCHITECT IS AVAILABLE.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTION FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? NO ONE FROM

THE BOARD IS RAISING THEIR HANDS SO I TAKE IT NO QUESTIONS FROM STAFF. LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. APPLICANT, ONCE WE CAN HEAR YOUR VOICE, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

544
>> GREAT, THANK YOU. CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME?
>> WE CAN.
>> THE TIMER'S SET UP.
>> THANK YOU. I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN I UNDERSTAND. I CAN PUT ME ON VIDEO. THAT'S ME AND I'D LIKE TO SHARE MY SCREEN. CAN PEOPLE SEE IMAGES? GREAT. THANK YOU. WELL, THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. I'M EDWARD BUCHANON THE PROJECT ARCHITECT FOR THIS PROJECT AT 2956 HILLEGASS. THIS IS TO ADD A ROOF DECK OFF THE MASTER BEDROOM AT

THE REAR OF THE HOUSE AND THE PROVED ROOF DECK WILL PROVIDE

SUNNY OUTDOOR SPACE ON A LOT WITH LITTLE OUTDOOR SPACE ON THE GROUND. LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, THE DECK IS PRIMARILY

DIRECTED WEST AND ONLY ACCESSED THROUGH THE MASTER BEDROOM WHICH

MEANS THIS IS A PLACE FOR THE OWNERS TO QUIETLY ENJOY A CUP OF COFFEE OR GLASS OF WINE BUT NOT AN INTENSE USE TYPE OF SPACE.

THERE ARE NO VIEWS TO IMPACT WITH THIS PROJECT, IT'S IN A DENSE

URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND BECAUSE THE DECK WILL BE BUILT ON TOP OF

AN EXISTING ROOF THE ONLY REAL ADDITION IS THAT OF A GUARDRAIL

AND IT'S AN OPEN GUARDRAIL AND NO IMPACT FOR NEIGHBORS' ACCESS TO AIR AND LIGHT. BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE

AND THE EXISTING HOMES LARGER FORM, THE ONLY ADDING SHADOWS ARE

CAST FROM THE OPEN GUARDRAIL ON TO THE ADJACENT DRIVEWAY TO THE NORTH. IT'S VERY NEGLIGIBLE. PRIVACY IS ALWAYS A CONCERN IN

PROJECTS LIKE THIS AND THERE'S ALWAYS A MUTUAL DESIRE TO

545
PRESERVE IT. FROM THIS VIEW, YOU CAN SEE IN THIS AREAL VIEW

THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERN ALREADY WITH ADJACENT REAR

NEIGHBORS ALL HAVING SIMILAR UPPER FLOOR ROOF DECKS INCLUDING THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH RIGHT HERE. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY

SETTING A STANDARD FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PRIVACY AND IN THIS REGARD

APPROVING THIS DECK WOULD SIMPLY BE ALLOWING MY CLIENTS TO ENJOY THE SAME RIGHTS AS THEIR NEIGHBORS. THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH AT 2954 HAS THE VIEW IS ABOUT 17 FEET AWAY FROM THE DECK AND THE

VIEW IS OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THE ENTRY PORCH ON THE GROUND LEVEL

AND A SECONDARY REAR BEDROOM WINDOWS HERE AND SUN PORCH AT THE UPPER LEVEL. THROUGHOUT MUCH OF THE YEAR, AS WE'VE BEEN BY IN

THE PROPERTY, THEY HAVE SHADES DRAWN PRESUMABLY BECAUSE OF THE SUNNY ORIENTATION AND TO PROTECT THEIR OWN PRIVACY. THERE'S NO

CASUAL DIRECT VIEW IN THE NEIGHBORS MASTER BEDROOM WHICH IS THIS AREA UP HERE. UNLESS YOU WALK TO THE FAR CORNER AND LOOK BACK TOWARDS THE HOUSE. IT'S NOT A CASUAL EASY THING TO DO AND THE

DECK IS ORIENTED TO THE WEST AND TO ENSURE PRIVACY MY CLIENTS

ARE PROPOSING SCREENING PLANT TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE

DECK TO SOFTEN THE EDGE AND CREATE THE VISUAL PRIVACY BETWEEN THEM AND NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH. SIMPLY TO

CONCLUDE, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT ALL IMPROVEMENT SO FAR SO

THIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN PERMITTED PROPERLY AND GONE THROUGH ALL THE RIGHT CHANNELS AND SIGNED OFF. THIS IS THE ABUNDANCE OF

LETTERS FROM MOST THE NEIGHBORS ENJOY STRONG SUPPORT AND HAS

546

MINIMAL IMPACT TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND PROVIDES THE VERY MUCH NEEDED, VERY USEFUL OUTDOOR AREA ON A SMALL LOT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT. YOU GUYS ARE SO QUIET. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, APPLICANT. AS BEFORE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND NOW TURN OUR ATTENTION TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. I'LL GIVE THEM A

CHANCE TO SPEAK AND THEN APPLICANT, YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO COME

BACK AND RESPOND TO ANYTHING SAID OR ADD ANY LAST COMMENTS AFTER WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.
>> GREAT.
>> THANK YOU. SO ATTENDEES, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS

PROJECT, NOW IS THE TIME TO RAISE YOUR HAND AND I WE HAVE SIX HANDS UP. THAT'S GREAT AND ONCE AGAIN I'LL REMIND YOU TO PRESS STAR 9 IF YOU'RE JOINING BY PHONE IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK AND I

WILL CALL ON THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN THE ORDER THEY RAISED THEIR HANDS. EACH MEMBER GETS TWO MINUTES. WE HAVE A TIMER UP.

HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SEE IT AND FIRST I'LL RECOGNIZE DANA SACK. >> THE LETTERS YOU RECEIVED FROM NEIGHBORS NONE ARE IMPACTED BY THE DECK ONLY 2954 AND THE NEIGHBORS ON WEBSTER STREET WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THE DECK BECAUSE IT'S IN THE BACK. THERE'S VERY

LITTLE CHANGE TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE SO THE COMMENTS ARE REALLY IRRELEVANT. ONE COMMENTER IS FROM OAKLAND, TWO IS FROM

547
PIEDMONT AVENUE, ONE IS A BLOCK AWAY. THESE ARE PEOPLE NOT IMPACTED ANYWAY. THOSE ARE NOT HONEST COMMENTS. THE APPLICANT YOU SAW THE DOORS OVER THE FUTURE DECK OVER THE ROOF. THOSE WERE INSTALLED WITHOUT PERMITS IN RESPONSE TO THE NEIGHBORS AT 2954,

BARBARA AND MARK TELLING NEIGHBORS IT WAS DANGEROUS TO HAVE DOORS ON A ROOF WITHOUT RAILING. THEY PUT UP A GRILL TO KEEP THE DOORS FROM OPENING AND MADE THIS APPLICATION. CLEARLY THEY WERE PLANNING TO BUILD THAT DECK WITHOUT PERMITS. THE OTHER THING THEY DID BESIDES THAT WAS MR. STAR SENT A LETTER TO BARBARA'S

HUSBAND, MARK, IN FRANCE, ACCUSING HER OF INFIDELITY AND

ADULTERY INCLUDING A PICTURE OF A MAN STANDING AT THE FRONT DOOR

OF THE HOUSE WHICH YOU ALSO SAW A PICTURE OF IN THE ARCHITECT'S PRESENTATION. I'M THE LAWYER WHO IS PROSECUTING THE DEFAMATION LAWSUIT OVER THAT FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY. YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO

TRUST PEOPLE WHO DID SUSPECT A HEINOUS ACT VIOLATION OF PRIVACY

FROM THEIR YARD POINTING THE CAMERA AT THE FRONT DOOR AND YOU

WANT TO GIVE THE SAME PEOPLE A DECK THAT LOOKS INTO BARBARA AND MARK'S BEDROOM? THAT'S WAY BEYOND THE PALE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO SIGH BEFORE WE GONE, MEMBERS OF THE

PUBLIC HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK ABOUT WHATEVER THEY'D LIKE SO

WE'RE NOT GOING TO CENSOR YOU BUT CAUTIONARY ADVICE, COMMENTS

ABOUT PEOPLE'S CHARACTER OR INTENTIONS HAVE VERY LITTLE RELEVANCE TO THIS HEARING. WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE PERMIT APPLICATION IN FRONT OF US AND THAT'S IT. IT COULD BE FROM A

548
VERY GOOD PERSON OR BAD PERSON IN TERMS OF OUR DECISION MAKING.

I WANT TO SAY THAT FOR EVERYONE, DO YOUR BEST TO KEEP YOUR COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING. THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE BARBARA. BARBARA. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES ONCE WE HEAR YOUR VOICE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M 71 YEARS OLD AND ON THE FACULTY ON U.K. BERKELEY AND WE HAVE LIVED AT 2945 FOR 30 YEARS IN PEACE AND HARMONY UNTIL RECENTLY. THE GOAL OF THE OWNERS OF 2956 AND

WE AGREED TO THE LAST CHANGE BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT

AND THE PICTURE FROM THE ARCHITECTS ARE PICTURES TAKEN AFTER

THEY ALREADY MODIFIED THE BACK SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE TO PUT FLATTEN THE ROOF AND PUT THESE SLIDING DOORS. THEY DID THAT IN A

STEALTHY DEVELOPMENT SELECTIVE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BECAUSE IT'S DETRIMENTAL TO US AND I WON'T TALK ABOUT THE CHARACTER. AS

DANA SAID, AS WE PUSHED BACK ON THE IMPACT FOR PLANS THEY BECAME

AGGRESSIVE AND VINDICTIVE AND TRYING TO DEFAME US AND THIS MAY

BE A PROJECT FOR QUIET LIVING BUT THE NEW OWNERS HAVE BEEN

CONDUCTING LOUD CONVERSATIONS ON THE PORCH SOMETIMES LATE AT NIGHT. SOMETHING WE NEVER HAD TO PUT UP WITH FROM PREVIOUS OWNERS. ONE MORE THING, THIS IS NOT LOOKING JUST INTO OUR

BEDROOM AND IT'S NOT A SUNROOF, IT IS MY HOME OFFICE WHERE I

WORK EVERY MORNING, SOMETIMES IN THE EVENING AND ALSO ON THE WEEKEND. IT'S NOT JUST A SUN ROOM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

549
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> NEXT UP, WE HAVE ANDREA CAROL.
>> HELLO. GOOD EVENING. I'M ANDREA CAROL AND I AM A NEIGHBOR. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET. MY FAMILY MOVED ON TO HILLEGASS IN 1976 AND HAVE BEEN HERE EVER SINCE. IN THE LAST 50 OR SO YEARS WE'VE

SEEN A LOT OF CHANGES TO OUR BLOCK BETWEEN WEBSTER AND ASHBY AND

NOT ALL HAS BEEN GOOD BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU THE STARRS DESPITE

THE PANDEMIC HAVE DONE AN AMAZING JOB TO TURN A VERY SEISMICALLY

UNSOUND AGING, CRAMPED HOME INTO A BEAUTIFUL FAMILY HOME ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO. AND THE TINY DECK AND IT

REALLY IS VERY SMALL THAT'S GOING TO GO OFF THEIR PRIVATE MASTER

BEDROOM IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE PRIVACY OF ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS. I HAVE BEEN IN THEIR MASTER BEDROOM TO VERIFY THIS. I

ALSO HAD SPENT TIME IN THE HOME BEFORE THEY WERE OWNERS AND THE

LARGE DECK THAT USED TO SPAN THE ENTIRE BACK OF THE HOUSE HAS

BEEN REMOVED AND IT ACTUALLY IS EVEN LESS INTRUSIVE THE WAY THEY'RE IMAGINING THE SMALL BALCONY. AGAIN, I CAN'T TELL YOU

ENOUGH ABOUT HOW BEAUTIFUL THE HOME HAS TURNED OUT AND I REALLY

LOOK FORWARD TO THEM BEING ABLE TO FINISH THIS PROJECT AND LIVE WITH THEIR FAMILY THERE. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE JOHN BUTERAS.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

550
>> YES, JOHN GUTIERREZ, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING BARBARA AND MARK NOT IN THE MATTER DANA IS HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT.

551
Attachment 4

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560
Administrative Record
ZAB Appeal:
2956 Hillegass Ave.

This attachment is on file and available for review
upon request from the City Clerk Department, or can
be accessed from the City Council Website.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900
or from:

The City of Berkeley, City Council’s Web site
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil/
Attachment 5-6
561
Attachment 7
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING – BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY REMOTE VIDEO ONLY
ZAB APPEAL: 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE, USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0068 Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022 at 6:00 P.M. a public hearing will be conducted to consider an appeal of the decision by the Zoning Adjustments Board to approve Zoning Permit #ZP2021-0068 for the addition of a 170 square foot third-floor balcony to the rear of an existing three-story 2,834 square foot single-family dwelling on a 2,754 square foot lot that is non-conforming to lot coverage.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at www.CityofBerkeley.info as of JANUARY 27, 2022. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology.

For further information, please contact Samantha Updegrave, Zoning Officer, (510) 981-7414, or [email protected].

Written comments should be mailed to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 or emailed to [email protected] in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.
________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Mailed: January 25, 2022
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny (Code Civ. Proc. 1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5) an appeal, the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, no lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny or approve a Zoning Adjustments Board decision may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Zoning Adjustments Board decision, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing. Background information concerning this proposal will be available by request from the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.

562
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

INFORMATION CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Update on Berkeley’s Redistricting Process for City Council Districts

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This report is an update on Berkeley’s redistricting activities for the January-March 2022 timeframe.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley’s Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) convened for the first time in 2020. The 13-member Commission is fully responsible for developing and adopting revisions to Berkeley’s City Council districts. Since the districts must be balanced with approximately the same number of people in each one, redistricting is required every ten years to account for population shifts. The Commission must use the U.S. Census as the population data source, along with input from the public and other criteria established in the City Charter and other redistricting laws.

Public Submission of Redistricting Maps
The period for public submission of redistricting maps ended on Monday, November 15, 2021. A total of 29 maps were submitted for consideration by the Commission. The plans from the public provide valuable input to the Commission in the form of common themes and specific interests expressed, but they are not required to be the template from which the Commission determines the final boundaries.

In addition to redistricting maps, the Commission has received community input in a variety of ways. A “Community of Interest” or “COI” form is available in English and Spanish, allowing people to describe their community and why it should be represented in one City Council district. To date, 62 forms have been received from across the eight existing districts. Written comments have also been provided throughout the process, and the community continues to attend the Commission’s public meetings and hearings to give verbal testimony.

563
Update on Berkeley’s Redistricting Process for City Council Districts INFORMATION CALENDAR February 8, 2022

Map Development Process
The discussion of Communities of Interest and maps submitted by the public continued into January of 2022. The Commission has now transitioned into the map drafting phase, with the final map to be adopted in March 2022. All maps and COI forms are available online through the City’s redistricting web page at cityofberkeley.info/ redistricting. Key redistricting milestones are presented below:
 January 10 – IRC meeting (regular)
Discussion regarding public map submissions. Direction to staff on the number of draft maps and significant elements desired in the draft maps.  January 27 – IRC public hearing
First review of draft maps. Discussion and direction regarding revisions. May narrow number of draft maps under consideration.
 February 17 – IRC public hearing
Second review of draft maps. Discussion and direction regarding revisions. May narrow number of draft maps under consideration.
 Date TBD – IRC meeting (special)
Special meeting to receive additional feedback from the public on draft maps, if needed.
 February 28 – IRC public hearing
Third review of draft maps. Direction to staff on final map for adoption.  March 16 – IRC meeting (regular)
Commission adopts final map and accompanying redistricting report.  March 22 –City Council meeting (special)
City Council adopts first reading of the final map ordinance without alteration in accordance with the City Charter.
 April 12 – City Council meeting (regular)
City Council adopts second reading of the final map ordinance without alteration in accordance with the City Charter.

564
Update on Berkeley’s Redistricting Process for City Council Districts INFORMATION CALENDAR February 8, 2022

On January 10, the Commission established the following themes to be used in the development of the first set of five draft maps:

Themes to be prioritized in all draft maps:
a. 10% Maximum Population Variance
b. Contiguity
c. Communities of Interest/Neighborhoods
d. Use major arterial streets as boundaries where possible e. Correct the features of the 2010 map for Councilmember residences f. Include at least one compact student district in every map Themes to be included in one or more draft map variation:
a. Single, north-south West Berkeley district
b. Topography/Transit Access/Wildfire Risk
c. Two different maps with different configurations for two student majority districts
d. A map that has a high level of continuity with the existing boundaries that includes changes only as required by the six mandatory criteria above.

Maps are being drafted by three-member ad-hoc subcommittee pursuant to the direction of the Commission, with assistance from commission staff.

Community Messaging and Outreach
Staff and the commission have coordinated to develop a robust outreach program throughout the redistricting process. The plan’s objectives are to reach diverse communities, provide information, and encourage participation in the redistricting process.

The City’s initial method of communicating with the public is through community news releases, which are sent to approximately 9,000 subscribers and posted on the City’s website. Each release is followed by a cascade of related messaging across the following channels:
 Social media posts on Twitter (16,000+ followers) and Nextdoor (53 neighborhood groups)
 Emails sent to 400+ community groups and interested parties  Targeted outreach to ~40 high-interest community groups  Calls to contacts at local media outlets
 Paid advertisements in local media outlets
 Utilization of pass-through messaging by City Councilmembers  Continuation of the collaborative relationship with the Associated Students of the University of California and other campus partners

565
Update on Berkeley’s Redistricting Process for City Council Districts INFORMATION CALENDAR February 8, 2022

When possible, IRC messages will also be re-published through the e-newsletters managed by the Berkeley Public Library and Berkeley Unified School District.

In-person outreach continues to be limited by the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of public events also decreases during the winter months due to inclement weather.

Nonetheless, Staff has coordinated four in-person outreach dates in 2022. Open house events are scheduled at Northbrae Community Church on January 22 from 1:00-3:00 p.m., and at the South Berkeley Senior Center on January 24 from 5:00-7:00 p.m. On February 1st and 3rd, staff will have an informational table at the intersection of Bancroft Way and Telegraph Avenue from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Additional in-person outreach events will be attended as they become available.

Printed Draft Maps and Final Maps
Printed maps will be available in two sizes. Large-scale maps provide a detailed view of district boundaries; however, the large size limits where they can be placed in public facilities. Smaller, ledger-sized 11”x17” map books will be provided at locations where placement of larger maps is not feasible. Map books include an overview of each proposed map, an individual page dedicated to each of the proposed districts, and related population data.
 Large-scale paper maps will be available at two locations – the Central Library at 2090 Kittredge Street, and the South Berkeley Senior Center at 2939 Ellis Street.

Ledger-sized map books will also be provided at those locations.  Ledger-sized map books will be available at each of the City’s four library branches, two pools, and five community centers, the Central Administrative Offices at 2180 Milvia Street, and at the 1947 Center Street facility.

The first draft maps will be distributed to these locations within a day after they are made available to the public and published online on January 20. Maps will be redistributed as they are revised by the Commission, up to and including the final map. All maps and materials will be available online at cityofberkeley.info/redistricting/. Community of Interest forms are also already available at all of the locations described above.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

566
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

INFORMATION CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Healthy Checkout Ordinance Protocols

INTRODUCTION
On September 22, 2020, the City Council approved the adoption of the Healthy Checkout Ordinance 7,734-N.S. in which applicable retail stores would be required to meet standards in Sec 9.82.030 A-C in all checkout areas. The City’s Public Health Division was identified to conduct biannual reviews of qualifying food and beverage categories and Environmental Health was identified to conduct enforcement of the ordinance.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Public Health Division has developed a process to conduct a biannual review of the qualifying food and beverage categories that will begin on July 2022, seven months after enforcement of the ordinance began on January 1, 2022. This biannual review will be conducted by a City staff member with an educational background and professional experience in the field of nutrition. Categories will be based on nationally accepted nutrition standards and references. The Public Health Division developed forms to document the review, and the results will be provided to the Council biannually as an Information Item.

The Environmental Health Division developed a procedure for enforcement that is aligned with the Division’s regular inspections of businesses considered “Large Retail Stores” (defined as commercial establishments selling goods to the public with a total floor area over 2,500 square feet and selling 25 linear feet or more of food). Inspections associated with the Healthy Checkout Ordinance will be conducted as part of the subject facility’s routine inspection schedule beginning in January 2022. Responses to complaints of noncompliance will occur as soon as practical, typically within five (5) business days or longer, depending on Division priorities at the time the complaint is received. Inspections will follow standard inspection procedures and follow issuance of administrative citation(s), when applicable, according to Chapter 1.28 of the Berkeley Municipal Code A fee study will be conducted by the Division to determine the actual personnel and resource costs for these unfunded additional activities.

567
Healthy Checkout Ordinance Protocols INFORMATION CALENDAR February 8, 2022

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley recognizes the negative health impacts associated with diets that include an excess of added sugars and sodium, and that placement of unhealthy snacks near a register can entice increased consumption. For this reason, the Healthy Checkout Ordinance No. 7,734-N.S. was approved and went into effect on March 1, 2021 with enforcement commencing on January 1, 2022.

Berkeley funded community-based organizations, Bay Area Community Resources (BACR) and Community Health Education Institute (CHEI), led informational and educational activities with twenty-five (25) retail businesses that fall under the defined criteria of “Large Retail Store” to support their understanding and compliance of the Healthy Checkout Ordinance prior to enforcement going in to effect on January 1, 2022.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental sustainability and climate impacts.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Regular informational items will be submitted to City Council to keep Councilmembers updated on the activities associated with the Healthy Checkout Ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
This Ordinance requires staff resources that are not funded, which impacts staff time and Division budgets.

CONTACT PERSON
Janice Chin, Public Health Division Manager, HHCS, (510) 981-5121 Attachments:
1: Protocol for Biannual Review, Healthy Checkout Ordinance 7,734-N.S. 2: Protocol for Enforcement of Healthy Checkout Ordinance 3: Ordinance No. 7,734-N.S; Healthy Checkout

568

Health, Housing and
Community Services Department
Office of the Director

A Vibrant and Healthy Berkeley for All

2180 Milvia Street, 2nd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510. 981.5100 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510. 981.5450 E-mail: [email protected]

MEMORANDUM

To: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager

From: Lisa Warhuus, PhD, Director

Date:

Subject: Proposed Protocol for Enforcement of Healthy Check-Out Ordinance by Environmental Health Division Field Staff

Effective January 1, 2022, the City of Berkeley’s Environmental Health Division (EHD) will begin conducting inspections at qualifying food facilities (i.e. retail food markets with greater than 2500 sq. ft. of floor sales) for compliance with the City of Berkeley’s “Healthy Check-Out” (HCO) ordinance. These inspections will be conducted as part of the subject facility’s regular routine inspection.

In addition, EHD staff will respond to and investigate complaints of noncompliance with the HCO ordinance as soon as practical, typically within five (5) business days or longer, depending on EHD priorities at the time the complaint is received. (Note:

Violations of the HCO ordinance are not assigned the same priority as other more ‘acute’ health and safety issues such as foodborne illness-related complaints and/or COVID-related complaints.)

In situations where EHD inspectors identify and document a violation(s) of the HCO ordinance and/or other compliance issues related to the HCO ordinance, EHD staff will document the violation(s) on the official inspection form for that facility. If the violation(s) cannot be corrected during the course of the routine inspection, EHD inspectors will apply the same criteria used in determining whether a follow-up inspection is necessary.

Follow-up inspections are chargeable inspections (currently billed at $170/hr. or fraction thereof), and are a useful enforcement tool in achieving compliance in most instances.

However, if additional follow-up inspections are necessary to correct violations of the HCO ordinance, facilities will continue to be charged for any additional follow-up inspections. If compliance with the HCO ordinance still cannot be achieved after multiple follow-up inspections, EHD staff may consider elevating enforcement efforts, Attachment 1

569
Subject Proposed Protocol for Enforcement of Healthy Check-Out Ordinance by EHD Field Staff Date:

which includes the issuance of an administrative citation(s), per Chapter 1.28 of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) with the associated penalties/fines:

$100 for the first violation
$200 for the second violation
$500 for the third and subsequent violations

Community members with general inquiries about the HCO ordinance, or those wishing to report a violation(s) of the HCO ordinance may contact EHD either via telephone:
510.981.5310, or via the general Environmental Health email inbox:
[email protected] .

570

Health, Housing and
Community Services Department

A Vibrant and Healthy Berkeley for All

2180 Milvia Street, 2nd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510. 981.5310 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510. 981.5305 E-mail: [email protected] - - http://www.cityofberkeley.info/health/

Healthy Checkout Ordinance 7,734 – N.S.

PROTOCOL FOR BI-ANNUAL REVIEW

Public Health (PH) Division staff shall review on a bi-annual basis the qualifying food and beverage categories listed in Section 9.82.030. of Ordinance No. 7,734-N.S. “Healthy Checkout”.

PH Division staff will refer to/cite professional sources on nutrition standards, guidance for healthy food and beverage categories, and/or healthy checkout toolkits in the review.

PH Division staff will mark each category item as NO CHANGE or CHANGE based on alignment with the most up to date Dietary Guidelines for Americans to assess if ordinance definitions and categories are supported by the guidelines.

If a category section is marked as “NO CHANGE,” PH Division staff has completed review of that section. If a category section is marked as “CHANGE”, PH Division staff will complete and attach “Attachment A”, providing: (a) reason/justification for the change, and (b) recommended language for the change

After completion of the Bi-Annual Review form and Attachment A (if applicable), PH Division staff shall sign, date and route through to HHCS Department Director.

If there are no changes, an informational item will be submitted to City Council.

If the review proposes changes, the HHCS Department will submit a council report to City Council for approval of the proposed changes to the Ordinance.

Results of the Bi-Annual Review will be made available online within 2 weeks of submission and/or approval by City Council.

The next Bi-Annual Review will be scheduled 6 months from the last completed review date.

Attachment 2

571
Subject Proposed Protocol for Bi-Annual Review

Rev.11/2021

BI-ANNUAL REVIEW ROUTING
Review and/or sign document(s) and pass along to:

PH Staff Reviewer:

Date:

PH Senior Manager:

Date:

PH Division Manager:

Date:

EH Division Manager.:

Date:

HHCS Department Director:

Date:

BI-ANNUAL REVIEW RESULTS
Chapter 9.82.030 of Ordinance No. 7,734-N.S.

DATE: __________________________

Qualifying Food and Beverage Categories Mark if noted as No Change or
Change*
A. Beverage
Must have no added sugars or artificial sweeteners

B. Food Items
Added Sugars – no more than 5 grams per labeled serving

Sodium – no more than 200 milligrams per labeled serving

C. Food item categories
Chewing Gum or mints with no added sugars
Fruit
Vegetables
Nuts
Seeds
Legumes
Yogurt
Cheese
Whole Grains
*For all recommended changes, INCLUDE ATTACHMENT A (Documentation for Change)

Completed by Public Health Division staff:

Name:_______________________________ Classification:___________________________

Signature and Date:____________________________

572
Subject Proposed Protocol for Bi-Annual Review

Rev.11/2021

*ATTACHMENT A- Documentation for Proposed Change(s)

CATEGORY (as it is currently approved in Ordinance No. 7,734-N.S.):

RECOMMENDED CHANGE:

Justification for change (include reference):

Recommended language for change:

573

574

575

576

Communications

All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900

Records Online
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/recordsonline

To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:

1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”

2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting

3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF