August 29, 2017 Sharon Gong, Associate Planner · 8/29/2017 · August 29, 2017 Sharon Gong, Associate Planner City of Berkeley, Planning and Development Permit Service Center 1947

August 29, 2017 Sharon Gong, Associate Planner City of Berkeley, Planning and Development Permit Service Center 1947 Center Street, 3rd floor Berkeley, CA 94704

Project Address: 2012 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, CA 94704 Project Number: Application for Use Permit (ZP) 2017-0108

Hello Sharon: We are respectfully responding to your “Application for Use Permit (ZP) 2017-0108 for 2012 Berkeley Way” letter dated August 3, 2017. Please find the project team responses to each of the city comments noted below, and the following documents enclosed for submission:

(1) 11x17 hardcopy set (1) Digital Set of revised drawings only (emailed), they are dated 8-11-17. The sheets included are A0.01C, A0.DB2a, A0.DB2b, A0.DB3, A0.DB4, A2.07.

Please do not hesitate to contact us with comments and/or questions, Vanna Whitney, LMS Architects 415-495-1700 x323 (for Design Team questions) Jamie Hiteshew, BRIDGE Housing 415- 321-3561 (for Owner Team questions)

COMMENTS: review comments are as follows, grouped by department: Response BY RESPONSES: to Review comments are as follows:

Blue text = attachments PLANNING (Sharon Gong , (510) 981-7429) Informational comments The application includes the following approval requests:

1. Use Permit under BMC 23E.68.030 to construct a new mixed-use development. 2. Use Permit under BMC 23E.68.030 to construct a Group Living Accommodations. 3. Use Permit under BMC 23E.68.030 to construct a parking structure (underground public parking). 4. Use Permit under BMC 23E.68.030 to construct a residential/commercial cafeteria. 5. Use Permit under BMC 23E.68.050 to construct new floor area of 10,000 square feet or more. 6. Administrative Use Permit under BMC 23E.04.020.C to construct rooftop projections, such as mechanical appurtenances or architectural elements which

exceed the maximum height limit for the district. 7. Density Bonus with the following requested waivers and concessions:

Waivers a. Height – to be 65’-4”, where 50’ is the standard, up to a maximum of 60’ (BMC 23E.68.070.A) b. Front Setback – to be 0’, where 15’ is required for a street-facing property confronting a residentially-zoned lot (BMC 23E.04.050.D). c. Side Setbacks – to be 0’, where 5’ is required for the portion of building that is 21-75’ in height, and that is over 65’ from the front lot line. (BMC

23E.68.070.C) d. Parking – to provide 0 off-street parking, where 59 are required. (BMC 23E.68.090.D) Concessions – [Three concessions permitted, per Government Code §65915(d)(2)]: e. Usable Open Space – to have 10,050 square feet, where 11,763 square feet is required.

N/A

1. Application Fees: The fees for this application have been deferred to an undetermined date.

CITY/ OWNERS

Planning fees have been deferred for now. BRIDGE is carrying the planning fees in the predevelopment budget. City to determine when planning fees are to be paid.

2. Base versus Proposed Project. In order to determine the density bonus for the project, the maximum allowable residential density must be based on the largest project allowed that is fully consistent with the lot development standards for the site – the “base project”. Thus, the base project must be fully compliant with the district development standards, without any discretionary permits to waive or modify the standard. (See BMC 23E.68 for C-DMU district standards.) a. Open Space. Please provide transparent calculations for the usable open space (include area diagrams if necessary) for the base project to show how it

complies with the standard. Check the calculations in the Open Space Calculations table on sheet A0.01.B and explain the ratio used for calculating the UOS requirement for BFHP beds and dorms – “80 s.f. per unit or 40 s.f. per room”. Staff uses the R-3 standards for Group Living Accommodations of 90 s.f. per person, as required by the Use Table 23E.68.030 for the C-DMU zoning district, which references R-3 district standards. Provide a line to show

ARCHITECT 2a. Base Project Open Space Areas + Calculations added, see Sheet A0.DB2a (previous

sheet A0.DB2 changed to A0.DB2b) Open Space Calculations table on sheet A0.01.B is per Berkeley Municipal Code 23E.68.080, which is for the CDMU zone, and is also per meeting minutes with Planning Division. Please, see highlighted text on attached meeting minutes “ Attachment_ 2012 B.Way-Planning Mtg. Mins. 2015.12.10”

2

the total required and proposed open space for the entire building. b. Parking. Please provide transparent calculations for the parking (show the floor plan) for the base project to show how it complies with the standard.

Check the calculations in the Car Parking Table on sheet A0.01.C and explain the ratio used for calculating the parking requirement for BFHP beds and dorms – “1 space per sleeping room”. Staff uses the R-3 standards for Group Living Accommodations of 1 space per 5 residents, plus one for the manager, as required by the Use Table 23E.68.030 for the C-DMU zoning district, and as specified in the Table 23D.36.080 for the R-3 zoning district:

ARCHITECT 2b. Base Project Parking Plan + Calculations added, see Sheet A0.DB2a (previous sheet

A0.DB2 changed to A0.DB2b) Car Parking Table on sheet A0.01.C is per Berkeley Municipal Code 23E.68.080, which is for the CDMU zone. This is acceptable per 08.03.17 Meeting (Sharon, Jamie, and Vanna by phone).

c. Parking Waiver versus Concession. A concession is a “reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards… including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for affordable housing costs”, whereas, a waiver or reduction can be requested of development standards that would otherwise “have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development” of the density bonus project. Please explain why the parking reduction is requested as a waiver rather than as a concession.

CITY/ OWNERS

Department of Public Works, City Manager, and HHCS to finalize decision about the amount of public parking the project will construct. The plan remains to provide no parking dedicated to the residential uses.

d. Please revise all calculations based on revisions in response to the above items.

ARCHITECT Revisions required are show on sheets notes in items a +b above.

e. Substantial Consistency. The proposed project must be substantially consistent with the base project (ie. footprint, setbacks, and amenities), without the waivers or concessions to allow the density bonus.

ARCHITECT The proposed project is substantially consistent with the base project (ie. footprint, setbacks, and amenities).

3. Density Bonus Calculations:

a. Round Up. Sheet A0.DB3, steps 1.3.B and 2.3. Per the current state density bonus law, all density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. See Government Code §65915(f)(5) and (g)(2). Please correct all unit rounding in the table on sheet A0.DB3

ARCHITECT Calculations revised based on the City of Berkeley Draft Density Bonus Calculations

emailed by Sharon Gong on 8/3/17. See revised Sheet A0.DB3 and A0.DB4

b. Percent of VLI. Sheet A0.DB3, step 2.1 should be the number of VLI units in the proposed project divided by the number of base units.

ARCHITECT Per conversation on 8/3/17 with Sharon Gong, the current number shown on Sheet A0.DB3, is correct.

c. Residential Area. In the table for residential area inclusion on sheet A0.DB3, clarify whether the Offices serve the BFHP studios and the veterans dorms and shelter, and whether Shared areas are used by the studios and the veterans dorms and shelter.

ARCHITECT Per conversations with the Planning Department areas that are used by both residential an non-residential occupancies are counted at 50%. Since the offices serve both the studios and the shelter and vets, it is counted at 50%.

4. Application Submittal Requirements. The following required items were missing from the application submittal, to date, and must be submitted for application completeness, as previously discussed:

a. Provide the invitation that was used to mail the notices for the Neighborhood Meeting, attendance list, and any meeting notes taken.

OWNERS Community meeting will be scheduled once the amount of public parking provided in the

project is finalized.

b. Submit photos of the Pre-Application Poster installed on the site.

OWNERS Pre-Application Poster will be installed once the amount of public parking provided in the project is finalized.

c. Submit an Anti-Discriminatory Housing Policies Statement.

OWNERS Owner to provide.

d. Submit a Traffic Impact Analysis. Please contact Traffic Engineering Division (981-6445) to determine required scope of study.

OWNERS Traffic Impact Analysis to be completed once the amount of public parking provided in the project is finalized.

e. Submit a Parking Survey. Please contact Traffic Engineering Division (981-6445) to determine required scope of study.

OWNERS Parking Survey to be completed once the amount of public parking provided in the project is finalized.

f. Submit documentation of application to the PG&E Savings by Design program, as required by the Office of Energy and Sustainability.

OWNERS Per August 3rd email from Sarah Moore, the project will participate in the California Multfamily New Homes program as an alternative to the PG&E Savings by Design program.

g. Submit an Area of Potential Effects Statement, per the Housing Department requirements.

OWNERS BRIDGE, HHCS, and Rincon to finalize APE Statement.

5. Manager’s Unit. Will the manager’s unit be a market rate unit?

OWNERS The manager’s unit is not a market rate unit. The manager does not pay rent, and that cost is captured in the operating budget for the project.

6. Unit Table. In the Unit Table on sheet A0.01.C, the temporary sleeping room should be on Level 2 and not Level 5?

ARCHITECT This has been corrected. Please see revised Sheet A 0.01C

7. Loading space. Show the location of the loading space on the site plan, compliant with Transportation requirements.

ARCHITECT See highlighted text on attached meeting minutes on “ Attachment_2012 BWay-PubWks+Pkg Mtg Notes_2017.07.28”

8. Rooftop Elements. Pursuant to BMC 23E.04.020.C, provide a calculation to show that the rooftop elements do not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the average floor area of all of the building’s floors. Please measure floor area using the definition for Gross Floor Area in BMC 23F. The average floor area should be the

ARCHITECT See revised Sheet A2.07 with area calculations added.

3

total floor area of all floors divided by the number of floors. Solar equipment is exempt from this calculation.

9. Tabulation Form. Please revise the Tabulation Form to reflect changes made in response to all other comments in this letter.

ARCHITECT Revisions not required to this table on A0.01B.

10. Other Fees. This project may be subject to the following fees, which will be included as conditions of approval for the use permit: a. One-Percent for Public Art on Private Projects – BMC 23C.23 b. Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan (SOSIP) Impact Fee – 23E.68.075

OWNERS 100% of the units in the project will have a regulatory agreement with a government

agency restricting the rent. Therefore the project is exempt from the One-Percent for Public Art on Private Projects. Owner and Architect will work with the City to determine if a SOSIP Impact Fee is required. The project will include street infrastructure work.

Advisory Comments 11. Department Comments. This application has been routed to other city departments for comments. These comments will be forwarded to you when they are

received. Please respond to all department comments, and include revisions and response with your next submittal to Planning. Further revisions to the application may be required based upon your response to these items.

Revised submittal items should be submitted in both paper (one 11x17 set) and electronic (CD or flash drive) form, to my attention, to the Permit Service Center at 1947 Center Street, 3rd floor. Please submit responses to all requested items at once, and not incrementally. Also, please be aware that if you do not take action on the above items within 60 days, the application may be deemed withdrawn and returned to you.

N/A

TRANSPORTATION (Dipan Shah, PW, 510-981-6445) 1. Please confirm if the traffic circulation within the parking is one directional. It appears that the traffic circulation is a combination of one way and two way, it

makes confusing to the driver. I suggest to make the one way traffic circulation plan for parking and revise it for our review. PARKING CONSULT.

Response pending City of Berkeley determination how many levels of parking are required, and/or how many park lifts will be required.

2. Please provide the detailed interior dimension of the parking spaces. The City of Berkeley parking guideline can be available here: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=11846

PARKING CONSULT.


3. The below parking layout are not acceptable and requires the parking layout revision:

PARKING CONSULT.


ENERGY + SUSTAINABILITY DEVELOPMENT (Sarah Moore, 510-981-7494) 1. INFORMATIONAL

GreenPoint Rated (GPR) checklist, version 7, indicating that the project is currently targeting 119 points (Gold level) has now been included. This project must be certified at the GPR Silver level at a minimum (as an acceptable equivalent to LEED Gold in the C-DMU District); this submission indicates that the project is currently on-track regarding this green building requirement.

N/A

2. Although not addressed in Roundtable comments, I understand that there has been a separate question regarding whether this project needs to apply for the Savings by Design program. Savings by Design is an energy efficiency program for new nonresidential construction projects like office buildings or other commercial developments; it is not an appropriate program for this, primarily residential, building. We recommend that the project participate in the California Multifamily New Homes program because of the support and financial incentives it offers for energy efficiency, but this is not a requirement.

OWNERS/ SUSTAIN. CONSULTANT/ MEP/ ARCH

The preliminary Title 24 calculations show that the project currently complies with CMFNH program. Team to evaluate if more financial incentives will be provided by CMFNH or CSI and will apply to the one with greater incentives.

4

3. The plans now show a “photovoltaic canopy, to be included if budget allows” as well as solar hot water heater panels. I can’t tell with certainty (plans aren’t dimensioned), but expect that this coverage will satisfy the solar ready requirement of the 2016 Energy Code (a rooftop solar zone that is at least 15% of the roof size without obstructions and shading). I’m glad to see the inclusion of solar hot water and potentially solar PV on this project

ARCH The solar hot water and solar electric panels cover 18% of the total roof area.

See revised Sheet A2.07 with area calculations added.

4. The parking lot includes 4 EV spaces (including one accessible van EV space). If all 70 parking spaces are considered “non-residential”, this exceeds our standard condition of approval for EV charging readiness on 3% of non-residential spaces. However, I would recommend that at least 10%, and ideally 20%, of the parking spaces in this lot be pre-wired to support future EV charging (i.e. have electric panel capacity and conduit to support future 208/240 v, 40 amp outlets). It is inexpensive to add these elements at the time of construction, but can be very costly to retrofit afterwards (and EV adoption is very strong in our region).

OWNERS/ DPW- TRANSPORT. DIV.

Garage to be City owned and operated. Team to discuss EV ready stall quantities with the City Transportation Division.

5. Regarding water efficient landscaping, the applicant has now submitted the Bay-Friendly Basics Landscape Checklist and EBMUD Section 31 Water Efficiency Requirements Checklist. These suggest that the project should comply with the State’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO); documentation of WELO compliance will be required as part of the building permit application.

LANDSCAPE ARCH.

This will be submitted with the building permit application.

PUBLIC WORKS (Vincent Chen, ) 1. The plans indicate in the Stormwater checklist that this is a Special Project which allows them to treat some stormwater with media filters. Please have them

complete the Special Project Worksheet attached. CIVIL Completed Special Project Worksheet is enclosed.

2. The plans show canopies and signage encroaching past the property line and into the public right of way. Please inform the applicant that once the design is finalized they need to apply for an encroachment permit. The encroachment permit must be finalized and recorded prior to issuing the building permit.

ARCH Encroachment permit application to be submitted after ZAB review.

3. Sidewalk. Full frontage replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway. (VC: Comments 3 and 4 have been addressed by the Design Review plan set 7/21/17. Please remind the applicant they need to show street repaving and sidewalk/curb/gutter replacement on their building permit set.)

CIVIL No response required; comment has already been addressed in civil plans as noted.

4. Street. Full frontage repaving (2” overlay) to center line of Berkeley Way. (VC: Comments 3 and 4 have been addressed by the Design Review plan set 7/21/17. Please remind the applicant they need to show street repaving and sidewalk/curb/gutter replacement on their building permit set.)

CIVIL No response required; comment has already been addressed in civil plans as noted.

END OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

MRP 2.0 Special Projects WorksheetComplete this worksheet for projects that appear to meet the definition of “Special Project”, per Provision C.3.e.ii of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP 2.0). The form assists in determining whether a project meets Special Project criteria, and the percentage of low impact development (LID) treatment reduction credit. Special Projects that implement lessthan 100% LID treatment must provide a narrative discussion of the feasibility or infeasibility of 100% LID treatment. See Appendix J of the C.3 Technical Guidance (excerpt attached, download at www.cleanwaterprogram.com) for more information.

Project Name:

Project Address:

Applicant/Developer Name:

1. “Special Project” Determination (Check the boxes to determine if the project meets any of the followingcategories.)Special Project Category “A”Does the project have ALL of the following characteristics?

Located in a municipality’s designated central business district, downtown core area or downtown core zoning district, neighborhood business district or comparable pedestrian-oriented commercial district, or historic preservation site and/or district1; Creates and/or replaces 0.5 acres or less of impervious surface; Includes no surface parking, except for incidental parking for emergency vehicle access, ADA access, and passenger or freight loading zones;Has at least 85% coverage of the entire site by permanent structures. The remaining 15% portion of the site may be used for accessory uses2.

No (continue) Yes – complete Section 2 of the Special Project Worksheet

Special Project Category “B”Does the project have ALL of the following characteristics?

Located in a municipality’s designated central business district, downtown core area or downtown core zoning district, neighborhood business district or comparable pedestrian-oriented commercial district, or historic preservation site and/or district1; Creates and/or replaces more than 0.5 acres of impervious area and less than 2.0 acres;Includes no surface parking, except for incidental parking for emergency access, ADA access, and passenger or freight loading zones;Has at least 85% coverage of the entire site by permanent structures. The remaining 15% portion of the site may be used for accessory2 uses;Minimum Gross Density3 (GD) of either 50 dwelling units (DU) per acre (for residential projects) or a Floor Area Ratio4 (FAR) of 2:1 (for commercial). Either criterion can be used for mixed use projects.

No (continue) Yes – complete Section 2 of the Special Project Worksheet

Special Project Category “C”Does the project have ALL of the following characteristics?

At least 50% of the project area is within 1/2 mile of an existing or planned transit hub5 or 100% within a planned Priority Development Area6; The project is characterized as a non-auto-related use7; andMinimum GD of 25 DU per acre (residential) or a FAR of 2:1 (commercial). Either criterion for mixed use.

No Yes – complete Section 2 of the Special Project Worksheet

1 And built as part of a municipality’s stated objective to preserve/enhance a pedestrian-oriented type of urban design.2 Accessory Uses: safety access, parking structure entrances, trash and recycling service, utility access, pedestrian connections, public uses, landscaping and stormwater treatment.3 Gross Density (GD) – The total number of residential units divided by the acreage of the entire site area, including land occupied by public right-of-ways, recreational, civic, commercial and other non-residential uses.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – The Ratio of the total floor area on all floors of all buildings at a project site (except structures, floors, or floor areas dedicated to parking) to the total project site area.5 “Transit hub” is defined as a rail, light rail, or commuter rail station, ferry terminal, or bus transfer station served by three or more bus routes. (A bus stop with no supporting services does not qualify.)6 A “planned Priority Development Area” (PDA) is an infill development area formally designated by the Association of Bay Area Government’s / Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s FOCUS regional planning program.7 Category C specifically excludes stand-alone surface parking lots; car dealerships; auto and truck rental facilities with onsite surface storage; fast-food restaurants, banks or pharmacies with drive-through lanes; gas stations; car washes; auto repair and service facilities; or other auto-related project unrelated to the concept of transit oriented development.

1 Approved by NDS March 8, 2016

Special Projects Worksheet (continued)2. LID Treatment Reduction Credit Calculation (If more than one category applies, choose only one of theapplicable categories and fill out the table for that category.)

Category Impervious Area Created/Replaced

(sq. ft.)

Site Coverage

(%)

Project Density or FAR

Density/Criteria AllowableCredit

(%)

AppliedCredit

(%)

A N.A. N.A. 100%

B 50%

75%

100%

C Location credit (select one)8:

Within ¼ mile of transit hub 50%

Within ½ mile of transit hub 25%

Within a planned PDA 25%

Density credit (select one):

10%

20%

30%

Parking credit (select one):

10% at-grade surface parking9

10%

No surface parking 20%

TOTAL TOD CREDIT =

3. Narrative Discussion of the Feasibility/Infeasibility of 100% LID Treatment:If project will implement less than 100% LID, prepare a discussion of the feasibility or infeasibility of 100% LID treatment,as described in Appendix J of the C.3 Technical Guidance (excerpt attached), discussing both technical and economic feasibility/infeasibility. The infeasibility of 100% LID treatment must be established prior to approval of any non-LID treatment.

4. Select Certified Non-LID Treatment Measures:If the project will include non-LID treatment measures, select a treatment measure certified by a government agency, such as the “Basic” General Use Level Designation (GULD) by the Washington State Department of Ecology’s TechnicalAssessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE). Guidance is provided in Section Appendix J of the C.3 Technical Guidance (download at www.cleanwaterprogram.com – excerpt attached).10 If a different certification program is used, specify the design operating rate for which the product received the relevant certification.

Special Projects Worksheet Completed by:

Signature Date

8 To qualify for the location credit, at least 50% of the project’s site must be located within the ¼ mile or ½ mile radius of an existing or planned transit hub, as defined on page 1, footnote 2. A planned transit hub is a station on the MTC’s Regional Transit Expansion Program list, per MTC’s Resolution 3434(revised April 2006), which is a regional priority funding plan for future transit stations in the San Francisco Bay Area. To qualify for the PDA location credit, 100% of the project site must be located within a PDA, as defined on page 1, footnote 3.9 The at-grade surface parking must be treated with LID treatment measures.10 TAPE certification is used in order to satisfy Special Project’s reporting requirements in the MRP.


Special Projects Worksheet (continued)Print or Type Name


MRP 2.0 Special Projects Worksheet (continued)

Attachment 1

Excerpts from Appendix J of the C.3 Technical Guidance

J.6 LID Infeasibility Requirement for Special ProjectsIn order to be considered a Special Project, in addition to documenting that all applicablecriteria for one of the above-described Special Project categories have been met, the applicantmust provide a narrative discussion of the feasibility or infeasibility of using 100 percent LIDtreatment onsite, offsite, or at a Regional Project. The narrative discussion is required to address the following:

1. The infeasibility of treating 100% of the amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d forthe Regulated Project’s drainage area with LID treatment measures onsite;

2. The infeasibility of treating 100% of the amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d forthe Regulated Project’s drainage area with LID treatment measures offsite or paying in-lieu fees to treat 100% of the Provision C.3.d runoff with LID treatment measures at anoffsite or Regional Project; and

3. The infeasibility of treating 100% of the amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d forthe Regulated Project’s drainage area with some combination of LID treatmentmeasures onsite, offsite, and/or paying in-lieu fees towards at an offsite or RegionalProject.

The discussion is required to contain enough technical and/or economic detail to document thebasis of any infeasibility that is determined.

J.6.1 On-site LID TreatmentThe narrative discussion should describe how the routing of stormwater runoff has beenoptimized to route as much runoff as possible to LID treatment measures. A discussion shouldalso be provided for each area of the site for which runoff must be treated with non-LIDtreatment measures, and should include the following:

1. Uses of impervious surfaces that preclude the use of LID treatment;and

2. Technical constraints that preclude the use of any landscaped areas for LID treatment,such as:a. Inadequate size to accommodate biotreatment facilities that meet the sizing

requirements for the drainagearea;b. Slopes too steep to terrace;c. Proximity to an unstable bank or slope;d. Environmentalconstraints (e.g., landscapedarea is within ripariancorridor);e. High groundwateror shallowbedrock;f. Conflict with subsurfaceutilities;g. Cap over pollutedsoil or groundwater;h. Lack of head or routing path to move collected runoff to the landscaped area or

from the landscapedarea to the disposal point;i. Other conflicts or required uses that preclude use for stormwater treatment (explain).


Special Projects Worksheet – Attachment 1 (continued)

J.6.2 Off-site LID Treatment.The applicant must demonstrate to the municipality performing the project review that it is infeasible to provide LID treatment of an equivalent amount of runoff offsite either by paying in-lieu fees to a regional project or on other property owned by the project proponent in the samewatershed (in other words, that alternative compliance, as described in Chapter 9, is infeasible).

Check with the local municipality to determine if there are any regional projects available foralternative compliance purposes (at the time of completion of this Appendix, there were none inAlameda County). These considerations should be documented in the narrative discussion of the feasibility and infeasibility of providing 100% LID treatment.

J.6.3 Combination of On-site and Off-site LID Treatment

The applicant must also demonstrate to the municipality performing the project review that it is infeasible to provide LID treatment of 100% of the amount of runoff specified in Provision C.3.d with some combination of LID measures on-site, offsite, and or paying in-lieu fees to aregional project.

After determining the extent to which stormwater runoff can be optimized to route as muchrunoff as possible to LID treatment measures, if that amount is less than 100%, and if there are no options to provide LID treatment off-site on a property owned by the project proponent in the same watershed, check with the municipality to determine if there are any regional projects available for alternative compliance purposes for the remainder of the C.3.d amount of runoff.These considerations should be documented in the narrative discussion of the feasibility and infeasibility of providing 100% LID treatment.

.J.7 SelectNon-LIDTreatmentMeasuresCertifiedby a Government Agency

MRP Provision C.3.e.vi.(3)(i) requires municipalities to report to the Regional Water Board, foreach non-LID treatment measure that the municipality approves, “whether the treatment system either meets minimum design criteria published by a government agency or receivedcertification issued by a government agency, and reference the applicable criteria orcertification.”

For Special Projects that are allowed to use non-LID treatment measures, applicants areadvised to use treatment measures that have been certified by the Washington StateDepartment of Ecology’s Technical Assessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE), under GeneralUse Level Designation (GULD) for Basic Treatment.11 You can identify proprietary media filtersand high flow rate tree well filters currently holding this certification at the following link:http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/newtech/technologies.html.

The municipality may require that any non-LID treatment measures used in a Special Projectbe TAPE-certified, or the municipality may allow the use of non-LID treatment measurescertified by another governmental program.

If the TAPE system is used, treatment measures must be sized based on the hydraulicsizingcriteria specified in MRP Provision C.3.d and the design operating rate for which the productreceived TAPE GULD certification for Basic Treatment. If a different certification program isused, specify the design operating rate for which the product received the relevant certification.

11 “General Use” is distinguished from a pilot or conditional use designation. “Basic Treatment” is distinguishedfrom treatmenteffectiveness for phosphorus removal. Basic treatment is intended to achieve 80 percent removal of total suspended solids (TSS) for influent concentrations from 100 mg/L to 200 mg/L TSS and achieve 20 mg/L TSS for less heavily loaded influents.


BERKELEY, CA 08/11/2017DESIGN REVIEW |Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects677 Harrison StreetSan Francisco, CA 94107415.495.1700

A0.01CQUANTITIES MATRIX2012 BERKELEY WAY

SHEET NOTES:(1) UNIT NET SQ. FT. (NSF): THE SUM OF THE AREAS IN THE UNITINCLUDED WITHIN THE INSIDE FACES OF ITS EXTERIOR WALLS ANDMEASURED TO THE INTERIOR FACE OF FINISH OF DEMISING ANDCORRIDOR WALLS.

(2) INCLUDES: SUPPORTIVE SERVICES + MANAGEMENT OFFICES,LOBBY, COMMUNITY ROOM, COMMUNITY KITCHEN AND 2ND FLOOROFFICES.

(3) INCLUDES: LOBBY + COMMUNITY ROOM+ COMMUNITY KITCHEN

(4) INCLUDES: SUPPORTIVE SERVICES + MANAGEMENT OFFICES

UNIT TABLE

CAR PARKING NOTE:PROJECT REQUESTING PARKING REDUCTION VIA THE DENSITY BONUS.SEE DENSITY BONUS SHEETS

THE BERKELEY WAY PROJECT WILL PROVIDE REPLACEMENT PUBLICPARKING IN A SUBTERRANEAN PARKING STRUCTURE. THE PARKINGSTRUCTURE WILL BE DESIGNED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THEDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. THE PROJECT OWNER IS PROPOSINGNO PARKING FOR THE BRIDGE AND BFHP USES. THE OWNERSHIP TEAMWILL WORK WITH A TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT AND THE CITY OFBERKELEY ON TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS TO OFFSET THE IMPACTOF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL AND SHELTER USES. THE OWNERSHIP TEAMDOES NOT ANTICIPATE A HIGH LEVEL OF CAR OWNERSHIP AMONG THEPERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RESIDENTS, TRANSITIONAL HOUSINGRESIDENTS, AND SHELTER HOUSING CLIENTS. THERE IS A LOWERPARKING DEMAND ASSOCIATED WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSINGDEVELOPMENTS, SUCH AS THE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECTIS ALSO IDEALLY LOCATED, WITH SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONOPTIONS WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE


..2012 BERKELEY WAY

08/11/2017 A0.DB2aBASE PROJECT OPEN SPACE + PARKING


..2012 BERKELEY WAY

08/11/2017

DENSITY BONUS -PLANSA0.DB2b


..2012 BERKELEY WAY

08/11/2017 A0.DB3DENSITY BONUS -PLANS

Date Issued: 08/11/2017 BASED ON 01/13/16 + 3/8/17 MTG W/ PLANNING

DENSITY BONUS (DB) CALCULATIONS (1)STEP DESCRIPTION COMMENTS UNITS SF1.1.A BASE * PROJECT SF see calc. below 76,4001.2.A+B PROPOSED * PROJECT 110 98,5101.2.C PROPOSED PROJ. AVG UNIT SIZE proposed: proj. area/ # units 8961.3.A BASE UNITS base proj/ avg. unit size 85.311.3.B BASE UNITS (ROUNDED UP) 86

DENSITY BOUNS INCREASE2.1 %VLI 53 BFHP STUIDOS/ ALL UNITS 37%2.2 DB BONUS BASED ON VLI 35%

2.3DB INCREASE ALLOWED NO. OF UNITS (ROUNDED UP)

DB SF= UNITS X AVG. UNIT SIZE31

27,776USE PERMIT INCREASE (2)1 FLOOR BLW. 60 FT. based on base proj. typ flr. 32 23,215TOTALS: DENSITY BONUS + USE PERMIT INCREASEALLOWABLE TOTAL 149 127,391ACTUAL PROPOSED PROJECT TOTAL (W/ USE PERMIT) * 142 121,725UNUSED TOTAL 7 5,666(1) Per "Berkeley Procedures for Implementation of State Density Bonus Law - Sept. 15, 2014"(2) Per Berkeley Municpal Code 23E.68.070 Development Standards, Table 23E.68.070

* BASE + PROPOSED PROJECT (RESIDENTIAL) AREAS BASE (SF) ** PROPOSED (SF) **

1st FLOOR 15,350 15,2952nd FLOOR 15,190 15,5153rd FLOOR 22,930 23,3904th FLOOR 22,930 23,100TOTAL BASE PROJECT 76,4005th FLOOR (USE PERMIT FLOOR) N/A 23,2156th FLOOR (DENSITY BONUS FLOOR) N/A 21,210TOTAL W/O USE PERMIT N/A 98,510TOTAL W/ USE PERMIT N/A 121,725

* * AREAS INCLUDED IN PROJECT (RESIDENTIAL) AREASBASE PROPOSED

BFHPSTUDIOS yes yesVET'S DORMS no noSHELTER no noOFFICES serving STUDIOS half of SF half of SFSHARED BY STUDIOS half of SF half of SFBRIDGEGARAGE ACCESS no noBIKE STORAGE no no


..2012 BERKELEY WAY

08/11/2017 A0.DB4DENSITY BONUS -AXONOMETRICS

T

2

3

1

BA

STAIR 2

STAIR 4

H J K L M Q

7

PL.8 N.6 P.5K.5H.6

6.2

289 SFUTIL.315 SF

UTIL.

5

6

4

2.8

3.5

5.2

B.5 C.5C D.5D E F G NG.5

57 SFECR

24

24

24

24

TYP

TYP

59

25

2525

3325

2525

6163

62

58

97

LEGEND - PROGRAM COLOR

BFHP CIRC OPENBFHP CIRCULATIONBFHP UTILITYBRIDGE CIRCULATION

+4"

+1'-4"

+1'-4" +1'-5 1/4"

+1'-5 1/4"

+4"

+1'-6 1/2"

+1'-6 1/2"

+1'-5 3/4"

+1'-4 1/2" +1'-4 3/8"

+1'-5 1/2"

+4"

33

33

33

33

2

A3.03

1

A3.03

25

97

97

1/4" MIN,TYP

64

64

64

121TYP

120TYP

TYP

120TYP

61

62 63

137

137

NOTE: ROOF ELEVS. REFER TO T.O.S.

MAINTENANCE ACCESS PATH

1/4" MIN,TYP

3333

64

119

.

..

.

2

3

1

BA H J K L M QPL.8 N.6 P.5K.5H.6

6.2

5

6

4

2.8

3.5

5.2

B.5 C.5C D.5D E F G NG.5

60

60 602525 TYP 25 TYP

609898

9696

1/4" MIN,TYP

ROOF AREASGROSS ROOF /TYPICAL FLOOR(CALC'D PER BMC 23F)AREA: 23,000 S.F.

ROOFTOP ELEMENTSAREA: 1,233 S.F.% OF TOTAL 5.4%

SOLAR (HOT WATER + P.V.)AREA: 3,670 S.F.% OF TOTAL 16%

0 3232


@ 11 x 17:

@ 22 x 34:

A2.07ROOF PLAN2012 BERKELEY WAY

PENTHOUSE PLAN

ROOF PLAN

LEGEND - PLAN KEYNOTES24 ROOF DRAIN & OVERFLOW, S.P.D.25 PARAPET33 PAINTED METAL GUARD RAIL58 VENT SHAFT TERMINATION, S.M.D.59 ELEVATOR OVERRUN60 SCUPPER AND RAIN WATER

LEADER61 WATER HEATER, S.P.D.62 SOLAR HEAT EXCHANGER, S.P.D.63 SOLAR STORAGE TANK, S.P.D.64 DESIGN-BUILD SOLAR HOT WATER

PANELS BY OTHERS, S.P.D.96 ROOFTOP UNIT, S.M.D.97 HEAT PUMP ASSEMBLY, S.M.D.98 ACCESS LADDER119 PHOTOVOLTAIC CANOPY, TO BE

INCLUDED IF BUDGET ALLOWS120 EXTERIOR BUILDING

MAINTENANCE ANCHORS121 EXTERIOR BUILDING

MAINTENANCE OUTRIGGER POSTFOR MOBILE BEAM

137 CHUTE VENTILATION

016 16

Documents

August 29, 2017 Sharon Gong, Associate Planner · 8/29/2017 · August 29, 2017 Sharon Gong, Associate Planner City of Berkeley, Planning and Development Permit Service Center 1947