Hello, everyone, it is 64. I'm we're going to get this show on the road. Are you ready?
Uh, just about, let's make sure we are recording in progress.
Okay, we're all good.
Okay, hi, everyone. Sounds like we're ready to go.
I'm going to call to order the Tuesday April 22nd, special meeting of the Berkeley City Council.
We have a quorum here. Let's take roll, please.
Okay. Council member Kesterwani is currently absent. Council member Kaplan.
No, I'm actually here city, Mr. City Clerk. I need to use one of those authorized excuses to be doing the meeting via zoom.
Yes. Okay. Well, right after the roll, we will go through the script.
Okay. Thank you.
Uh, and that's okay. Let's start over.
Council member Kesterwani is present.
Council member Taplan. Present. Present. Present.
Council member Bartlett is currently absent. Council member Tregov.
Present. Okay.
Present. Black.
Here.
We're going to parah.
Here.
Humber here.
And mayor EC.
Here.
Okay.
So Council member Kesterwani is participating in the meeting remotely,
with the Brown Act as amended by AB2449 under the just cause justification.
A quorum of the council is present and participating in person at a physical location.
That was noticed on the agenda and is open to the public.
And within the boundaries of the agency.
Council actually vice mayor, Kesterwani.
If you could provide a general description of the circumstances relating to your need to appear remotely.
Um, that would be medical diagnosis family caregiving need.
Uh, or, um, chemical disease.
Yes, my, my reason is a family caregiving need.
Okay.
And vice mayor Kesterwani, if you could disclose,
um, whether there are any individuals, 18 years of age or older that are present with you in the room.
And if so, what their relationship to you is.
Uh, no, there is nobody over 18 in the room with me.
Okay.
And vice mayor Kesterwani will participate through both audio and visual technology.
So that satisfies the requirements of the Brown Act and we can proceed with the meeting.
Thank you.
Um, I want to check and see if any, if any council members have any,
I'm going to ask the council member to contact the council member.
Okay.
No.
Council member Toppaine is not in the room.
So I want to just check back in with him before he just in case.
Um, but I do want to disclose that my staff have met with both the applicant and the appellant.
To discuss their perspectives on projects.
as well.
Councillor Trigger has his hand raised.
Oh, thank you.
I can't see that.
Councilmember Trigger?
Our office met with several neighbors in several district for constituents, both in opposition
to the project, as well as in support of the project.
And Councilmember, I don't know if you submitted that documentation, but just want to
make sure that you do that to the clerk.
Yeah.
I did not receive the form, but would be happy to complete it for it with once received.
Yes.
Councilmember O'Keefe.
I met with Patrick Kennedy.
It's also a bit of a good work.
Thank you very much.
And clerk, I just want to make sure that Councilmember Trigger can still get his documentation
then.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yes.
Councilmember, thank you.
My staff spoke with the appellant and I spoke with the applicant.
And I'll fill out the paperwork also.
Thanks.
And likewise, my team and I met with the appellant about eight weeks ago.
I think we've filled out the paperwork, but I'll make sure we do.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
And just so we're clear, because Councilmember Tapplen's on the room, if he has met with someone
will we just.
I just want to make sure he gets a chance to disclose.
Okay.
That's disclosure before.
We open the public hearing.
Okay.
Thanks.
And yes, Councilmember.
Sorry.
We also met with the members of the Save the U.A.
Okay.
Great.
All right.
Thank you all so much.
We are going to now move on to our action calendar, which just has one item for tonight, which
is the Zab of Peel for 2274, Shadak Avenue.
And we're going to start this evening.
Just so folks know we're going to start the evening with the staff report.
We'll have a presentation from the appellant for five minutes.
A presentation from the applicant for five minutes.
And then we'll open up for public comment before taking Council comments and questions at
that time.
Just to folks are clear about what the structure is for this evening.
So we're going to start with the staff report.
There's no non agenda public comment at a special meeting of the City Council, only at
a regular meeting of the City Council.
Thank you, Mayor.
Good evening.
Council members.
I'm Jordan Klein.
I'm director of planning and development.
Join here at the staff table by.
I'm a attorney, Mr. Strash, the Lannes Planning Manager and Sharon Gong Principal
Planner on our project team.
And Sharon is going to be making the presentation on behalf of staff.
Thank you, Jordan.
Good evening.
Mayor, Eishie Council members and the public.
This hearing is for the appeal of Zab decision to approve youth permit.
ZP 2023.
0 0 7 9.
For project at 2024, Shadak Avenue.
I'm Sharon Gong, the staff project planner.
I will give an overview of the project as approved, and then present the main appeal points and staff's response.
The project site is an irregular L-shaped parcel located within the downtown area plan.
In the CDMU downtown mixed use district, quarter sub area, with its main frontage on Shadak Avenue, and its secondary frontage on Bencroftway.
The project site is surrounded by commercial, residential, institutional, and mixed use residential buildings ranging in height from one to five stories.
The site is currently occupied by a state historic landmark, the United Artist Movie Theater, which was originally constructed in 1932,
and which operated as a movie theater venue until its closure in February 2023.
The project proposes to demolish the movie theater, except for the front facade on Shadak Avenue, as you see here, along Shadak, which will be preserved and restored, and the theater lobby behind it.
That's the one story volume behind the facade on Shadak, which would be renovated and repurposed and incorporated into the new building as a cafe.
The project Senate Bill 330 preliminary application vested the site's historical resource status as not a city landmark in November 2022.
This vesting by state law prohibited the landmarks preservation commission from denying the demolition of the theater, or from posing conditions related to a cultural or historic resource protections on the project.
The demolition of the theater was referred to LPC for review under the use from an application.
In addition, a landmark initiation application was submitted in December 2023 by say the UA Theater organization, who is the Pellants in this appeal.
The UA Theater was designated by the LPC as a city landmark in March of 2024.
In its review, the LPC considered the request to designary staff.
We need to take a brief recess. Something's come up. Okay, excuse us.
Recording stopped.
We're going to take a brief recess.
So sorry about that, Sharon, sorry to interrupt you.
So Council Member Taplan needs to recuse himself.
He's going to read his statements and I just want to make sure we take care of that before we go any further so.
Good evening.
Even though I have not been advised.
Recording in progress.
Even though I have not been advised of a conflict, I am recusing to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.
Good evening.
Okay.
I think we can continue on with the presentation.
Thank you.
In its review, LPC consider the request to designate the entire theater building, including interior elements as a city landmark.
But chose to designate only the building facade and its decorative detail as the distinguishing features to be preserved.
In its designation, the LPC specifically identified the upper portion of the Shadak Avenue building facade and the decorative features seen here on the slide.
As the character defining feature that should be preserved and restored.
The project's impact on cultural resources under SQL, however, was not affected by the LPC's designation.
To give a bit of legislative framework for the SQL discussion, I'll provide some information on the State Housing Accountability Act and Assembly Bill 1633.
The Housing Accountability Act is a state law that was enacted in 1982 that promotes infill development and that streamlines housing development in the state.
AD1633 is a law that became effective in January 2024, which made revisions to the Housing Accountability Act to allow developers to claim that a violation of the HAA was made.
If a local agency fails to determine exemption from environmental review or SQL for a project, when the project is eligible.
The UA Theater Project applicants submitted an AB1633 notice on March 4, 2024, along with technical reports to support an exemption from SQL for the project.
On October 4, 2024, after reviewing all evidence on the project record, staff determined that the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of SQL,
because the project meets all of the requirements for the infill exemption.
Further, staff determined that the project would not result in a substantial adverse change to the historical resource due to the preservation and restoration of the main character defining feature of the resource, namely the upper static facade.
And therefore, the project would not meet the criteria for the historical resource exception to the exemption, which would have disqualified the project from using the infill exemption.
On December 12, 2024, the Zoning Adjustments Board approved the use permit to demolish the theater, preserving the static facade and the theater lobby, and constructed mixed use building that is 17 stories, 183 feet in height, has 227 dwelling units, 23 very low income density bonus qualifying units, approximately 8,000 square feet of usable open space and a 900,000 square feet.
Here's a comparison of the existing theater facade and the proposed building facade with a new 17 story volume behind it.
This comparison shows how the project proposes to preserve and restore the main character defining feature of the theater that was identified by the LPC in its landmark designation.
On January 13, 2025, the city clerk received a letter of appeal for the Zad's decision from Susan Branthali on behalf of Save the U.A. Berkeley.
Next, I'll be summarizing the main points of the appeal letter and staff's response to each.
In the first appeal point, the appellant asserts that the U.A. theater is a mandatory historic resource via its listing in the California Register of historical resources,
that its historic status encompasses more than the facade, and that substantial demolition of the theater would cause a substantial adverse change in its historic significance, and therefore the historic resource exception to the secret exemption applies.
The city recognizes that the U.A. theater building is in historic resource as defined in the SQL guidelines, and that the building as a whole was designated in the California Register of historical resources in 2006 by the state.
However, the applicant has submitted substantial evidence that the building has been significantly altered over time, such that its character defining features no longer convey the site significance.
The historic resource evaluation extensively evaluated the history of alterations to the building and found significant loss of integrity that negates the property's ability to convey significance.
The project impact analysis evaluated the building's
This current condition and proposed project's consistency with applicable secretary of interior standards
of for rehabilitation. The PIA concluded that the project would not cause substantial adverse
change to the remaining character defining features of the theater building that still conveys
significance, namely the upper front facade, and that the proposed project is consistent with
the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation. To make the secret determination
for the project, staff reviewed all of the evidence in the record, including project application
materials, plans, and technical reports, city consultant peer reviews of the submitted technical
reports, including the historic resource reports, the LPC's landmark designation,
notice of determination and findings, city attorney guidance, and city council's deliberations
at the closed session meeting held in September 2024. Staff also considered the city consultants
revised PIA, which recommended contrary to the applicant's PIA, that the demolition of the theater
would result in substantial adverse change to the historic resource, and that the secret exemption
could not be used for the project. Upon consideration of all of these evidence, staff determined
that there is a substantial evidence on the record that the project meets all of the requirements
for a class 32-info exemption from the secret view. Further, staff determined that the project
would not result in a substantial adverse change to the UA theater historical resource,
because it proposes to retain the architectural design and details of the upper shatiks facade,
the character defining feature that embodies the theater's historical significance. And therefore,
the historic resource exception would not disqualify the project from the secret exemption.
In the second appeal point, the appellant argues that the categorical exemption is not consistent
with the downtown area plan, including policies for protection and expansion of historic theaters,
that specifically referenced the UA theater. The city's downtown area plan is comprised of broad
policies and goals that guide development in the downtown district. It includes policies and goals
that encourage the retention and expansion of cinema, along with live theater and music venues,
with the goal to strengthen the downtown as a prime regional destination for these types of art.
Specifically, the economic development policy ED1.7, entertainment and culture in the DAP,
speaks of a goal of preserving cinema in the downtown. If photograph of the UA's theaters front facade
is included in the figure in this policy, as a figure in the policy section, and the theater
is described as a building that helps to contribute to the special sense of place that distinguishes
downtown from other destinations, along with the California theater and music clubs and live theater
venues in the area. The project complies with this policy by preserving as much of the existing theater
as is feasible, the front facade and the lobby area. A structural review member, which submitted,
which was submitted by the applicant's structural engineer to the LPC for its landmark review,
concluded that substantial definition of the theater building would be required in order to bring it
into compliance with current seismic and building code, and that preservation of the larger building
would not be feasible. Consequently, the ZAB found that the project is consistent with all applicable
objective general plan and downtown area plan goals and policies, as discussed in the ZAB's
staff report, and the board approved the project accordingly. In the third appeal point, the
appellant asserts that the project description relied upon in the ZAB's review is not finite or stable,
and is inadequate for consideration for the categorical exemption, for the applicant's recent
public assertions that the application would be substantially modified. Staff determined that the
secret exemption applies to the project that is represented in the plans, and that is described
in the use permit that was approved by ZAB on December 12, 2024. Any substantial change to the project
as approved would be required to undergo a use permit modification that is subject to a new staff review,
including any review required pursuance of ZAB and a decision by the ZAB on the modified project.
To date, no application to modify the approved project has been submitted to the city.
In the fourth appeal point, the appellant asserts that there was a potential due process violation
in the ZAB proceedings, based on the representation in the applicant's letter to the ZAB,
that the city approved the class 32 categorical exemption in October of 2024 after deliberation
by the city council and in consultation with the city attorney, and there has been no public review
before any city council deliberation regarding the subject categorical exemption.
It is acceptable under secret, and is common practice for exemption determinations to be made at the staff level.
Staff review the project in accordance with the regulations and timeframes set forth in AB 1633,
that apply to projects in which invoked the law to ensure that the city determines a project
to be exempt from ZEQUA when it is eligible. The CD council met in close session on September 24, 2024,
to discuss potential litigation related to the project under ZEQUA as publicly noticed.
No public discussion. No public discussion. One second. Folks in the audience, please keep your
comments to yourself and everyone. Taste make sure your phones are off and put on silent.
No public discussion regarding the secret determination is required by AB 1633 or the Housing
Accountability Act, and the city is not obligated to disclose discussion conducted in closed session.
In the last appeal point, the appellate asserts that the ZAB was not provided with all
relevant city reports from the architectural historians regarding the UA theater.
The city consultants peer review of the historic resource reports and the revised PIA
were publicly released concurrently with staff's SQUA determination letter on October 4, 2024.
Staff had already made the SQUA exemption prior to the ZAB hearing on December 12, 2024.
The reports that staff relied upon for the SQUA determination were not necessary for ZAB's
deliberation on whether to approve or disapprove the project's use permit, and thus were not included in
ZAB's hearing materials. Nevertheless, all technical reports were publicly available well in advance
of the ZAB hearing. In conclusion, the project is exempt from SQUA under the in-fill exemption
and pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, the project is compliant with all applicable
objective planning standards, and cannot be denied nor can the density be reduced unless findings
of specific adverse impact to public health and safety can be made. Finally, pursuant to state
permit streamlining laws, tonight's meeting is the fourth out of five meetings that the city can
conduct for a decision on the budget. That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.
Thank you very much for the presentation. We are going to move on to the presentation from the
appellant before moving on to the presentation from the applicant. Will the appellant please come forward?
And then for the applicant, if you could just prepare anything that you're trying to move forward,
close your up to the front. Thank you. Please start when you're ready, and you might want to move
the mic up higher. Good evening, Mayor Ishi and members of the city council. I'm Tom Lippie,
I represent the appellant, save the UA Berkeley. So this is the last 32 categorical exemption from
environmental review under SQUA. That staff and the zoning adjustment board granted for this project.
My presentation is about a provision in SQUA that prohibits the use of a categorical exemption,
where a project, quote, may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource,
unquote. That section 21084 subdivision E, I'm going to use that number or that section number often.
There's a similar provision in the SQUA guidelines which staff referred to, and those are regulations issued
by the Secretary of Resources, a lower level of government than the legislature, which SQUA was adopted by.
It's one, and the historical resource exception is one of six exceptions that
preclude the use of a categorical exemption. The staff and his ad decided that the exception in the
SQUA guidelines did not apply based on reports prepared by the applicant's consultant left coast,
which found that all parts of the building except the facade are no longer historically significant,
and therefore demolishing almost all of the building except the facade would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the historical significance of the building. That staff retained its own consultant
Rhincon consulting to peer review left coasts reports and Rhincon reached three important conclusions.
First, that left coast improperly segmented their analysis of the historic significance of the building
and whether the project may have a significant impact on it between the facade and the rest of the building.
And Rhincon pointed out that under guidelines issued by the National Register of Historic Places,
parts of buildings are not separately listed, so you cannot analyze impacts on the resource
by dividing it up and excluding parts of it from the analysis that was done here.
This guidance is also the policy of the State Historic Preservation Office. It's shown in a letter from
that office that's attached to exhibit four to my April 9 letter, and I would encourage you to
read that exhibit four because it deals with a project very similar to this one where a facade was
retained and the rest of the building was proposed to be demolished and the State Office said,
you can't get around sequa with an exemption by doing it that way because the entire building
has to be analyzed as one. So that wasn't done here. It's clearly violate State Policy.
Rhincon's second conclusion is that left coast improperly failed to consider the irreversible loss
of any future opportunity to use the building as a theater as a significant impact because
the building's use as a theater is an important feature that conveys its historical significance.
And so Rhincon's third conclusion is that when you correct these errors, you in fact have a project
that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the building. So for over 40 years,
the sequa case law has held that where sequa uses the word may in connection with causing
significant effects. The fair argument standard applies. The standard applies to section 21084E
of sequa because that section uses the word may. In connection with causing significant effects.
The standard is environment friendly because it requires resolving disagreements between experts
in favor of conducting environmental review under sequa. And applying the standard here is straightforward
because Rhincon's opinions are substantial evidence supporting a fair argument.
So this requires resolving the disagreement between Rhincon and left coast in favor of not applying the
exemption in conducting environmental review under sequa. The applicant contains that AB 1633 changed the
legal standard for whether the guidelines exceptions preclude the use of the categorical exemption
to a standard that favors development the so-called substantial evidence standard. This argument actually
doesn't make any sense because the new provision in AB 1633 only refers to the exemption exceptions
in the sequa guidelines. It does not purport to refer to or address section 21084. I'm sorry 21084E of sequa.
So the applicant now has to engage in another argument that adopting AB 1633 the legislature
engaged in something called implied repeal of section 21084E. But courts will avoid finding implied repeal
if two statues can be harmonized using established rules that govern interpretation of statutes.
Here the two statutes are easily harmonized because section 21084E is more specific than the new provision
in AB 1633 and the established rule governing the interpretation of statutes is that the
more specific statute will prevail. Therefore section 21084E preclude the use of the categorical exemption.
You can finish your sentence. Yeah I have one more sentence really. I just want to close by noting
that what is missing by not preparing any IR is the end up the analysis of feasible mitigations
or alternatives that might reduce impacts more than this project would. Okay thank you.
Okay so the applicant now will give a presentation for five minutes plus one sentence since I
allowed one sentence extra.
Feel free to if you want to wait till they're set up that's fine too just.
All right. Good evening, Mayor Ishii and members of the city council. My name is
Robyn Brawl. I'm a partner at Hanson Bridget, LLP and Lee and Lee and just council for the project.
Patrick Kennedy with panoramic interest is also here on behalf of the project sponsor, and
as ASTAC House, we're tracking Burke. Now, STT is here as the applicant and project architect.
In responding to this appeal, first I want to emphasize that I have responded to some of the key
issues and a letter to the city council that I've submitted to the city.
Second, I want to recognize a challenge that the city council and the Berkeley community pretty much
everybody has in keeping up with the evolving state housing laws in California.
AV1633 is a bill that was sponsored by the Bay Area Council in 2023 and took effect in January
1, 2024 by amending the Housing Accountability Act to change the way
secret exemptions are processed for a small subset of high density and field residential projects,
such as this one. In my role as a housing committee chair as the Bay Area Council,
I have had direct insight into the bill's framework and its legislative intent.
I can say with complete confidence that this project meets all the eligibility requirements
of AV1633. The applicant's legal letter and his testimony goes into detail about the standard
of review under SQA. These are the general rules that he's citing. My letter response to those claims
also in great detail. To summarize briefly, for this project, if the city were to use the fair arguments
standard in reviewing this project under SQA, that approach could result in a HA violation if it were
to prevent the city from following the express statutory mandates of AV1633. There's three court provisions
of AV1633 that are worth mentioning here. Now, for these projects, the HA puts the burden on the
project applicant to prove an exemption applies and the burden was on the applicant to prove that
there are no exceptions, including the historical resources exception that would disqualify the use of
an exemption. After the applicant provides this information through notice to the city, the city
has 90 days or up to 100 up to 180 days if more time is needed to review the notice and confirm
that it is supported by a substantial evidence. Third, a city is liable under the HAA if substantial
evidence provided by the applicant is provided by the applicant but the local agency does not determine
that the project is exempt. This framework is important. It shifts how the burden of proof operates
for the small subset of projects. The applicant followed the statute and now is required
submitted in AV1633 notice in March 2024. The notice was based in part on findings from Lefka's
architectural history, the historian that prepared the historic resources evaluation and project
impact analysis. The historians spent more than six months gathering records from every available
archive, compiling those materials, comparing them to prior surveys, addressing inconsistencies
and prior surveys and ultimately preparing a detailed asher which was finalized in December 2023.
Equal import is that the historian for this project followed the specific process required by
Sequo and analyzing potential impacts to historic resources, which notably includes an analysis of
whether demolition would impact the features of the project that features of the building that
convey its historical significance. The staff therefore made the correct decision when they found
the project exempt under the Class 32 infill exemption and found that the historical resources
exemption does not apply. Thank you for considering these points and thank you to the planning department
for its careful attention to the new requirements under the HAA that were implemented by AB 1633.
Thank you. My name is Patrick Kennedy. I have great sympathy with the movie lovers that are represented
here tonight. I too am a big, I too am a huge fan of movies and in fact in February of this year
I attended the dog film festival in San Francisco. It's real. There's a real. It was the ninth annual one.
There are three points I'd like to make. First off, when we took this project over in February of 2023,
we offered the space two UA theaters for $1 a year for our songs that took us to get the project to prove
which would have been probably now it's entering its third year. They declined. They stayed for one
month and they closed it and they said that the business went inadequate in Berkeley even though they had
seven screens in the theater. They closed here and they closed elsewhere. I think they're still open and
in Emoryville. A second point I'd like to make is the Facebook group does have incredible reach.
They're from Cork and Saudi Arabia, but we have the support of the local preservation group Baja
and their president, Lila Monecharch testified in support of this project. You can finish your
sentence plus one more. And the LPC. One more sentence. Finally, we are doing everything that the LPC
asked us to do in this project which includes restoring the facade, restoring the Labi,
and incorporating the significant architectural details that remain in the building in the new structure.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, so we are now opening for public comments.
So I will ask if the applicant can maybe move these posters so that folks can speak.
So if you are interested in giving public comments, I'm going to ask that you
get standing up on this wall to stand in line. Take your time. Walk slowly and I want anyone to trip.
And so for those of you who have not been to council recently, I am a huge stickler for timing.
So you have one minute to give your public comments. And then you can finish your sentence if the
buzzer beeps right is your ending. And then I'm going to ask you to stop. So thank you so much. I really
appreciate it. And we have a lot of public comments tonight. We want to make sure we can hear from everyone.
And I want to thank you all for coming here to share your opinions with us. So I'm going to start with the first public
commenter. And also the other thing is, I'm going to ask that folks, please not speak. Because it can be very
disruptive and want to make sure we can hear everyone. So thank you. Go ahead.
Thank you everyone. I think I will see you. I'm Karat Thins. And I'm speaking.
Good morning. Go ahead. Okay. I'm speaking tonight in strong support of the proposed project
at 2274 static. This development aligns with Berglis commitment to building more housing
downtown near transit services and jobs. And reflects our broader vision for a more sustainable and
inclusive city. As we all know, we are in housing crisis. And projects like this are essential to
meeting our goals under the downtown area plan and our regional housing needs allocation.
Last month, I personally toured the United Artists Theater site. What I saw confirmed what preservation
experts have already noted, very little of the historic theater remains. What was once beautiful is now
mostly concrete and decay. Importantly, this project doesn't come at the cost of our city's artistic
experience, which I dearly love. The nearby redevelopment of the California Theater, it
proposes to include a dedicated performance space, preserving a vital venue for artistic expression
downtown. Thank you. Okay. Next commenter. My name is Connor Mitchell and I am rising in opposition
of this project. I am a film director living in San Francisco, but I do consider Berglis one of the
great American cities. For the last few years, I have been helping produce and direct a documentary
on old art house movie theaters in the Bay Area. Since the COVID pandemic, more than a thousand
movie theater screens have gone dark across the country. More importantly, since COVID, all three
movie theaters in the downtown stretch of Berglis have closed, including the static and the California.
On a technical level, I'm not sure of what the specifics on what the solution is going to be for this
project. However, I do know that over the last few years, theaters have become much more important
and much more rare across communities. And with the times that we are living in now, where free
speech and right to assembly are being challenged nationwide, it is far more important now that buildings
like a UA, Berkeley, are not only preserved for the connection to our past, but also to help forward
the generations of the future. Thank you. Thank you. Next person can comment.
Good evening, Council. My name is Jake Price and I'm speaking in support of the project and
against the appeal. I grew up in Berkeley. I grew up going to the UA theater. It's a lovely theater.
But times are a changing and it's no longer a viable business and we need housing, especially downtown.
When I was at Berkeley high, over a decade ago now, all the businesses on Chadwick were vibrant and
serving high schoolers and college students. And now I see vacancies throughout the street.
We need more foot traffic. We need more dense urban and field development. And this project exemplifies
that perfectly and I ask that we move it forward today. Thank you. Thank you.
I get it and understand where the passion here comes from. Who isn't for artistry and unity?
Who would not love a bold and exciting vision of a once glorious art deco movie theater? Restored as if
straight out of the same Hollywood that birthed this building's creation. It's an alluring story to
fantasize about sticking it to the big bad developers and showing out the common folk can win.
But it appears that it lacks any grounding in the reality of constructing costs or what credible business
plan would justify such an investment. So what will be city council? Is this a popularity contest
or have you been elected to make thoughtful and informed decisions about our city's future?
Saving the UA would provide for us a damaged and faded star and empty shell with only
an implausible screenplay and no producer to make it anything more than a good story.
Thank you.
Hi there. Good evening. My name is Alan Chumaro and I'm in support of the project. I think the most
important thing I can say here is that the rules have been followed and it's important that we
redevelop buildings like this with better use. I think it's admirable that the historic facade is maintained.
I think that's going to be a beautiful remembrance. But we need housing and this is a good project. So I hope
you'll support it. Thank you. Thank you.
Good afternoon. I'm speaking of support of the project. The housing affordability crisis that
California in the rest of America faces is probably my generation's greatest conflict. I think we need
to do everything in our power to fight against this and build whenever we can. It's probably my greatest
reservation about staying within this state having affordable housing and we have 45 units that are
up for it taking so people who need it can have it. I walked inside of the movie theater when they were
doing the tour. I wouldn't pay to watch a movie in there. That place is run down and it needs millions and
upon millions of dollars in remodeling costs and there's no plan that's been outlined to say,
well how is it going to be done? Who's going to pay for it? But the builders are right here right now
ready to put up apartment complex. We should let them do it. So let's go, Berkeley. Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Moni Vaughn. I rise to speak in favor of housing downtown
economic vitality and this historic landmark united arts theater. As a filmmaker, mom,
an actor, mom, I've enjoyed movies at this very theater and I'm convinced that the cultural event of
movie theaters is not dead. $60 million was made by Ryan Cougar this last week in an an opening at
Grand Lake Theater. Secre State law still applies and is not nullified by SB 330 or AB 1633. The
U.A. theater operated continuously for 91 years and I pray that it will do so in the next 90 years.
A facade does not a landmark make it's the building itself and we could do both housing and a theater.
I say in the famous Star Wars quote, May the Force be with you, council, to make the right decision
and favor of retaining this cultural gem. Thank you. Thank you.
Hi, my name is Trace Pelletti. I am the preservation director of the Art Deco Society of California
and which is based in Berkeley and I'm also a Berkeley resident. I would like to urge the city council to
please consider that this building is not, does not qualify for an exemption to sequela. It is a major
historic resource. It is an art deco treasure and Berkeley is going to be tearing down the equivalent
of the paramount theater and Oakland should the demolition happen. So please really reconsider
what could happen if this turns into either a hole in the ground with nothing or if this theater is
going with just a facade. We have a major major treasure here.
In particular, that should not be demolished, because once it's gone, it's going to be gone forever. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.
Hi, my name is Heather Ripley and I'd like to see my time to lower Lyndon.
Okay, so you have two minutes. And you might want to move the mic down.
And, oh, no, I'm not Laura. I am also seeding my time to Laura.
And you can all come up. Why don't you all come up since you're seeding time to her?
It would be easier to say I'm Claire who's seeding time.
No, no, no, no, no.
Okay, so the three of you are seeding time, who is one, two, three.
Okay, great. Come on up, please.
I want to do two minutes on one and two minutes on another.
You can separate it however you'd like.
Yeah, so will it start and I can look or is that like this?
Yeah, okay. So there's a clock here and then there's one here too that you can check.
Okay, go ahead.
Okay. One of the line, one or two move up a bit.
All right. So hi, I'm Laura Lyndon and co-leader of the group saved you a Berkeley.
We've been going strong for two years. We have nothing to do with Saudi Arabia.
Look at all the people here come on.
Thousands, hundreds, if not thousands of people have written you guys letters over the past year.
You know, a lot of people in Berkeley, the Wider East Bay.
This is a very legitimate issue with a very legitimate legal and also a Wider policy argument.
That's why we're here to talk to you guys about it.
That's why we tried to meet with you guys because, you know, we really feel like some bad faith things have been said by the developer about us and about our arguments in that.
And so anyway, you might want to speak into the mic because.
Yes, okay. So this is being held up here.
If you could turn it a little bit because, you know, to say that there's nothing historic in the interior other than let's say the lobby, or let's say the facade is ridiculous.
Even as a multiplex, this thing is chalk full of art deco decor and ornamentation, okay.
All throughout, even as a multiplex in the auditoriums, in the hallways, the mezzanine, the grand staircase, it's on the, you know, the level of radio city music.
Those are the angels that are behind the partitions because the original auditorium exists behind the partitions and sure there is damage behind there, but it is incredible that this auditorium exists.
It was preserved in the 70s before this very reason for the ability to possibly bring it back.
So this theater has a lot of options.
So please look at all of the photos and do not dismiss what is in the interior of the theater.
And as our attorney has talked about this theater, the nut of it is that it is on the state historic registry, which, which is a listing that protects the entire building.
So very quickly, I want to just call out what has been, unfortunately, you know, and again, we respect the city council.
We're counting on you to give us a fair hearing and also to be independent in problem solvers, but really, we've had a lot of trouble getting information.
This, this secret exemption was so pivotal to the project's approval.
We feared that this deliberation will all be done in secret and then it would be granted and then it would be over and that's pretty much what happened.
In February of last year, you know, the sequel was outlined in January and then in then actually in March.
I spoke with Sharon Gong for 20 minutes took notes.
She did not mention that the developer had actually two weeks before in a 300 page document demanded a full exemption to sequence.
I spoke to her. I asked her about any possible exemptions. She did not answer. She didn't say she said nothing like that happened.
We only found out in May that that had happened. And then we began sending letters to you guys and sending letters to the whole city.
Please seek, you know, seek, you know, peer reviewed get other input, please.
We heard nothing. It was pretty much just, we heard nothing all spring, all summer.
But what we did here was that the project, the housing project proposal was on hold, on hold, on hold.
And then only in May did we find out about that there was this demand.
And then nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.
And then on October 4th, then suddenly, you know, the exemption is granted.
And then, oh, what do you know, that same day finally those documents are popped into that little portal that most people don't know.
That most people don't know how to get to, but I did eventually find it.
Okay, so we didn't, you know, we have been trying to get information to the public.
And we didn't get it. So sorry.
Yep, that's part of it.
Thank you for your comments.
All right.
Could you allow the next speaker to come up, please?
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
I wanted to, I still was trying to murder me, and nobody cares.
Two in a days ago, a seated rules park.
I mean, I just rang on me to death.
Oh, I was there because I'm so sorry.
I'm currently homeless.
I am homeless.
Sorry.
This is this is the way to come up with this.
I want to tell you why I'm homeless because I lived in the UK for board.
Student manager, can I, can I report you?
No, I'm so sorry.
But we're actually having a public hearing right now on a specific issue.
Because it's a murder around.
He wants to ring your neck.
Thank you.
Here you are.
And I, I'd like to refer to the same manager and see if we can have someone.
Take this woman's report.
Thank you.
Shall I start?
Yes.
Thank you.
My name is Tova Halpern.
I knew I had to do my part to preserve this iconic movie theater.
I was born and raised in Berkeley and have many memories of going to see movies there.
I represent my homies from Berkeley who went with their friends and families to see their
first films of the UA theater.
They want their grandchildren to be able to have the same opportunity.
There are also groups of local actors and artists who are without a venue to perform.
So a stage and an auditorium would be of great benefit.
Downtown Berkeley was the hub and this theater was the place to go.
The beauty of this theater is its location and accessibility.
By Bart, walking and by bus.
You see Berkeley students from all over the world become acquainted with American culture
at this theater.
Films importantly depict and instruct us about the past, present and future.
Let us not deny the general.
One more time.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
You could find someone to give you a minute if you'd like.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'm still afraid to move the mic.
I don't put up my back.
My name is Greg Osharpen.
I am the co-producer in co-host of KLX Film Plaza.
I'm also a local film editor of documentaries.
I think it's notable that Patrick Kennedy had to go to San Francisco to see the dog film festival.
Since there are no longer any theaters in downtown Berkeley, including the fine arts cinema,
which was in a space where a Patrick Kennedy building now exists.
And he had guaranteed so that he would put the movie theater back in.
And the fine arts cinema now no longer exists.
Also, the fact that there is a gaping hole where the shadow cinema is used to be.
And the fact that there are empty storefronts is because all the businesses were moved out to make way for a housing development,
which is now on hold and is not happening.
All of the places up and down center have been moved out for a housing project that is now on hold.
And I would like to give the political will for the ground swell behind me to oppose the project at the United Artists.
Thank you.
My name is Jeff Baker. I'd like to yield my minute to David.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Just move close.
Yeah.
When I was a kid in the 80s, I would see movies at the U.A.
and it never ever occurred to me that this building was remarkable in any way.
If it longs since been carved up into a multi-plex and even back in the 80s,
it no longer made economic sense to have that style of movie palace in downtown Berkeley.
200 plus apartments seems like a much better use of this space than a movie theater in an era when nobody goes to movie theaters anymore.
I'm not saying that this appeal is in bad faith,
but I think it's worth noting that nobody was interested in landmarking this property 50 years ago,
or 40 years ago, or 30 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 10 years ago, or five years ago, or three years ago.
I think you see my point.
Now, somebody wants to build apartments here and suddenly everybody wants to landmark this magnificent example of Berkeley's cultural patrimony
that they hadn't managed to notice for 50 years.
It makes me a little bit cynical.
And if it seems like I'm being mean, that is not my intent.
But I would like us to be clear that this isn't issue of values.
I am asking the council and the city to value our current and future generations.
You see students are living in their cars because of our housing crisis.
Rather than indulge this nostalgia and sentimentality.
Places for people to live are simply far more important for the Berkeley that exists today than preserving a mid 20th century movie house.
It is time to prioritize the future of Berkeley rather than its past.
Thank you.
Can you please do people are going to seek their time to meet?
Which two people?
Jemai, Ellis, and Anne, one river.
Okay, are those you just, can you just, can you just wave your hand?
So I know who you're, thank you.
Okay.
And then I'm going to ask that you sit down unless you've got something to hold up.
And I think Gary over there.
Gary, are you also giving your minute?
Yes.
Okay.
If you are, can I ask the two step out of the line please so that we're clear?
Thank you.
I just want to say quickly before I speak that the reason it wasn't.
But this is the part of your time.
Okay.
The reason it wasn't landmark 50 years ago is because if they landmarked it, they couldn't put in the multi-plex or alter it.
And as the owner of a movie theater, landmarking it wouldn't serve their purposes at the time.
So, dear Mayor and City Council, the stalking me which is a part of the appeal referenced above,
will focus on the fact that the housing development proposed for 2,274 static avenue is out of compliance with the city's downtown area plan,
DAP.
And that's the general plan and is therefore not eligible for the class 32 exemption that staff granted to the project.
The exemption should be reversed and the proposal set that sent back to staff to undergo the secret review process that was outlined by the city in January 2024.
The city's vague claim that there are now competing interests affecting downtown planning.
In no way excuses are make legal, I'm sorry, makes legal, letting a developer demolish the massive in a stark U.S. structure, which is now a local landmark on the California Register of historical resources and in our eligible.
According to California Code, regulations, Title 14, 15332, an infill development project must be consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations.
But the project, because it calls for destroying the palatial four story U.S. structure only to retain part of the facade and perhaps part of the lobby.
It is our understanding that the developer is not legally bound to retain the lobby, does not follow the DAP.
The Berkeley downtown area plan adopted in 2012 and part of the general plan was the product of up to 200 meetings and many years of work.
As a democratic document of citizen input that was approved by two thirds of Berkeley voters in 2010 and it must be followed.
Even with the raft of state housing laws that have been adopted since 2017, the general plan and the DAP are still in effect in govern planning in the city.
On the city's DAP web page at states these top goals, making downtown a recognized center for culture and arts, bringing new housing to downtown and preserving downtown historic assets.
The whole DAP document outlines the policies and goals to promote historic preservation and support the downtown cinemas.
And I just want to say this is not an argument.
Amendment about whether should be housing or this old archaic theater. This is about following the law. That's what our appeal is about. It's not about whether it's worthy or not. It is our feeling the law to not exempt this theater from the secret EIR. Thank you.
Okay, folks, move up. It's okay. Don't be shy. Hello, my name is Ania Fuchs. Can I give 30 seconds of my time to dance? Go for it. Okay, 30 seconds.
I grew up with 30 seconds on our clock or we'll just keep track of it. Okay, go ahead. I'll just, I'll just stop you at 30 seconds.
I grew up with the UA theater up to just a few years ago. I brought my friends from out of town. They're completely impressed. There's nothing like the UA theater.
In other cities, it's a source of pride. It makes Berkeley unique. I just from an outside point of view. I don't understand there many store fronts open that are just vacant and empty. Yes, housing absolutely important, but I don't see a conflict here.
This is one of these pearl gems that make unique make Berkeley so special and sorry here. Thank you. If you want to continue.
That was on me.
Mayor Council. To the last 10 years have been fighting for affordable housing in the South Bay. Last year's efforts led to the approval for a thousand housing units in Santa Clara.
This is what happens when the political pendulum swings left and right. Whenever it hits the amplitude, mistakes, serious mistakes are made.
We were trying to prevent you from making one here tonight. The California Register of Historic Resources and two separate city commission peer reviews are saying that the building has incredible historic merit.
The left coast architects and the developer are saying there's nothing worth saving. No one in this room except one person sitting right there has opened a patch of theater A and looked up at that art deco splendor in the auditorium.
It is incredible and it's intact. These buildings are not endangered. They're beyond endangered. If you tear down the UA, it's extinct. It's over.
We are not here tonight to ask you to vote to save the theater. We are here tonight to ask you to make sure that you follow the law.
A building like the UA is a rare prime example of when the implementation of CEQA is appropriate. Once it's gone, it's gone forever.
Thank you.
Our Lena Sagechick Berkeley resident. I'm sitting my time to Alan Mishon.
Okay. Two people are sitting. Three people are sitting there time to you.
Thank you. My name is Alan Mishon and I'm the owner and operator of the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland.
I have a long time history in Berkeley. In 1972, I built open and operated for many years the reality of cinema's on Gilman Street.
Later on, I operated the Sunset Theater on Telegraph Avenue subsequently the Fine Arts on Shaddock. I built the Shaddock cinema's. I had also a time to operate the north side theater and as well as the Oaks Theater on Solano Avenue.
Berkeley had a long history with entertainment. The downtown plan calls for entertainment. One of the exhibits that staff put up earlier in the day was fraudulent.
It was an aerial sight visit, sight plan of what we are talking about. It showed the UA building, but to the right it also showed the Shaddock cinema's building that is no longer there.
It is a gaping hole in the downtown and the developer has not been able to move forward with that. It broke my heart to see the Shaddock closed.
I want to explain that regal cinema's closest theater. They were in deep financial trouble because of COVID.
We were all forced as operators of public places to close our places of business for a year and a quarter.
And after that the public was afraid to come back. The Grand Lake would not have survived.
Had it not been for a government program called the SVOG, shuttered venues, operators grant.
I received a substantial amount of money from the federal government to take us through that period.
Regal did not. Big companies were exempted from that government help. Small operators like myself were allowed and given the ability to stay in business.
Some people tonight have said, oh, people don't go to the movies anymore. It's not a viable business.
I invite any member of this council and city staff to accompany me over to the Grand Lake after this meeting is over.
And you can count eight or nine hundred people watching my movies in the Grand Lake by the time the 730 shows starts.
We it is still a viable business. It is still recovering from COVID.
And most importantly, please don't look at this building as a movie theater coming back as a multiplex coming back.
It was a terrible multiplex. It was a prime example of a bad multiplexing of a beautiful low theater.
But at the time that work was done, the city council, the city planners had the foresight to say to the owner of the property.
Okay, will let you multiplex this theater, but all the original elements have to be retained.
You build your new auditoriums inside the shell of the old theater. You leave the ceiling alone.
You leave the pricinium alone. You create something that could be brought back.
And I urge you not to look at this theater now as a movie theater for the downtown, but as a future performing arts center for the whole region.
It is a fabulous theater with a fabulous stage, a full fly loft right on Bart 15 feet away from the front door.
This can be the pride of Berkeley just as the paramount is the pride of Oakland.
And it can serve the citizens of this town and then and surrounding communities for another hundred years.
There's nothing structurally wrong with that building. It's a fortress that's built just like my grand lake.
And I'd love to see it restored and preserved.
Thank you.
Okay.
All right folks, we want to make sure that folks come on.
We want to let this next speaker speak.
Please go ahead.
I'm Ellen Broden.
I'm Ellen Broden and I'll see you at my time too.
Okay.
I love the joy it's great. I just want to make sure we can hear from everyone.
Good evening mayor and council.
My name is Greg King.
I have operated theaters for 30 years in a past life and then involved in many restorations.
I urge you to support to appeal this ab decision and give the United Artist Theatre the proper and lawful assessment it deserves.
It is a prime and irreplaceable example of art deco.
It retains most of its original fixtures and decoration.
It's a public lobby in lounge areas. You now see our impressive.
But the mind blowing card is the auditorium ceiling.
The Oregon Grills and the Percenium.
All existing behind the sheetrock multiplex walls.
I am one of the few people in this room have seen this personally.
The OAS steeped in history and has entertained multiple generations of East Bay residents for 90 years.
The robust steel and concrete concrete frame and a restored interior can be a relevant part of a future.
Whether as an 1800 seat live venue or continuing as a multiplex,
the theater has generations of life and it left to give.
I implore you to do the right thing.
This building is on the California historical resource list and is eligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places.
It deserves to have a full sequo evaluation.
Exempting it from sequa is against the law.
Please understand that once demolition is started is not reversible.
The United Artists is too important to be grounded dust and end up in a landfill.
Please give this treasure the time to probably be evaluated and assessed.
Do not let this building disappear in a cloud of dust and become a crater like the Shadak cinemas.
I would suggest to make sure all funding is in place for the new build before any demolition permit is issued.
And to have a requirement to fully photograph and document this magnificent art decadule before it's final act.
Thank you and good evening.
Thanks for listening.
Thank you.
Madam Mayor, council members.
Thank you for letting me speak.
I'm Kirsten Schultz.
Berkeley is my hometown and I'm a resident.
I've never been to re-ad.
Fair city that it may be.
Berkeley's downtown and its movie cinemas were for us like a Piazza.
Or as a friend who comes home to visit his parents said,
No, not a Piazza.
A Piazza is a Piazza.
Because we all came down and walked around town.
And I think that's what we have to keep in mind when we look to future generations.
Young people are going to want to be among people together
in the real world.
And some of our downtown venues are spectacular,
but I don't have $175 to go to the theater
and young people don't either.
We need to preserve our spaces.
If we don't preserve our big public spaces,
what are we going to do 10 years from now?
When we need them to preserve us for climate incidents,
we all remember the orange summers.
Where did you go to brief?
Thank you.
Good evening.
I'm Brandon Broad.
I'm a Berkeley resident.
You see Berkeley alumni.
I've been in Berkeley since 1990.
And I would ask that you do the review.
I think 23 affordable units on this nice shiny tower on the schematics is not really a good number
if affordable units.
Park theater is now lighting up their old theater in Lafayette.
But I think we need some bright and vision for Berkeley downtown as some of these people have dressed.
The filmmaker here imagine a Berkeley, either national film festival.
How much money would that bring in to downtown San Francisco?
The Castro theater was saved.
They rebuilt and they made a live venue.
We have the procedure theater as they said Lafayette.
I got to go to a written out and go to some of these live events because we don't have one in Berkeley.
That's a similar theater.
There's film festivals, no valley, etc.
The procedure theater, private foundations are helping Lafayette.
They've raised $2 million.
Thank you.
Please do the review.
Hi, my name is Christine Iran.
I'm a long time Berkeley resident.
I think in a dispute like this we have people of good faith on both sides.
It always helps to get more information.
And under the law, there really seems to be a lot of support to do this inspection.
And figure out is the theater really seismically safe?
Does it really have all these beautiful articles, ornaments?
I know what I've seen going there.
I've seen the staircase.
I've seen the carved medallions.
I've seen the ceiling murals that the new development doesn't seem to retain.
The marquee doesn't seem to be perfectly retained in the new development.
Quite a bit of it is going to be shared off.
I would like you to really look at what we have.
And consider everyone here who we all want to build housing.
But we've been losing a lot of things in Berkeley.
And everyone has something they love they'd like to retain.
I think you need to look into what we really have.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Sarah Bell and I'm here to speak in favor of the project and against the appeal.
There are legal merits, which I believe favor the housing project.
But there's also the reality on the ground.
If you sit in the theater you'll see for yourself.
It's not the Grand Lake Theater.
It's a shabby multiplex.
Pull back the metaphorical and literal curtains and you'll see crumbling concrete.
The building is literally unsafe for those inside it and for structures around it.
To find out saving the facade and lobby the last original part remaining,
we need to find a new use for the site.
Thankfully, well not thankfully, Berkeley desperately needs housing
and the housing developer proposing this project plans to preserve the facade and lobby.
This project is the best choice both for historic preservation and our housing crisis.
Let's build homes for theater goers to come.
Thank you.
Okay folks.
Good evening and thank you for your attention.
My name is Summer Brinner.
And I just want to put a plug in for all the theaters that used to be here.
And also the the very logical reasoning, historical reasoning that we heard about COVID being subbed.
We're going to have a meeting next week about middle housing, and we're going to have a meeting
week about middle housing, and that's going to hopefully address the affordability crisis, because the housing crisis is driven about the affordability crisis.
Just one more thing is a status, sorry, your time is one more word, a status.
Thank you.
Hi, Karen Westmont. I live in and on Rose Street. I'm offered one bit of information that you would find if we did a sequence.
And that is that the United Artists themselves were significant. They were part of a labor movement in this essence. They caught the studios.
The reason Charlie Chapman came and Mary Pickford came is because this was their effort to free themselves from the control of the studios.
So there is more to be found about what this resource is on the point about housing.
I used to do the regional housing needs determination for the state of California. I did those determinations for 71% of the state's counties.
Not the Bay Area. Berkley was never supportive of the housing numbers it was assigned.
So now that you've got an opportunity, I want to suggest something else you should do instead.
Housing units built in the city of San Jose recently in the thousands only increased households.
You can register sometimes. Thank you. Only increased households by four or five hundred. The thousands of units didn't go for residents.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Kavich Hutterbethy and I'm a student at UC Berkeley.
I've listened to people here speaks tonight with such deep love and passion for the theater and I respect that.
And it's clear that this place meant something because Berkeley afforded a people's opportunity to live here long enough to build these memories.
And I want that same chance, but so many of my friends can't afford to stay here.
They're living in cars, overcrowded apartments, and community hours just to be here.
This project creates 227 new homes including 23 deeply affordable homes in a preserve the shadow facade and resource historic lobby.
It brings a new life to building that now empty and unsafe even when it was offered at a dollar a year the theater couldn't survive.
The city, the city attorney, and over 10 independent experts have all agreed that this project qualifies for a Sequel exemption.
I think it's really time to move forward and I think the city should approve this project so students like me can continue to continue to build a future here.
Thank you.
Folks, hey folks, you know what, when you all were giving your comments, people were respectful and allowed you to speak.
I'd like you to do the same for them.
Good evening council members. My name is Theo Gordon and I'm here to ask you reject the appeal and approve the housing, but I also actually don't want you to listen to me.
I don't want you to listen to anyone else in this room.
We are not normal.
Normal people don't spend their Tuesday nights waiting for hours to give 60 seconds of comment.
We don't represent Berkeley.
That's your job and our other representatives as well.
And the people of Berkeley has said time and time again they want more housing.
They rejected two four members of this body who constantly found reasons to pose housing and instead elected a mayor who campaigned specifically on ending the housing crisis.
And just today assembly member Buffy Wicks and Sacramento was working to try and pass her bill AB609, which would exempt even more infill projects from Sequel.
Because she knows if rivolous appeals like this one do not protect the environment.
And shouldn't be held in projects in dense infill housing should not be held up by 40 people with $5,000 for a lawyer and a lot of time on their hands.
Assembly member Wicks has made a career of championing housing and voters responded by relating to 70% of the vote.
We can finish your sentence.
Please bill more housing. That's what we want.
Dear mayor and council.
It's not mixed use if the ground floor retail remains vacant.
We have a lot of blight in downtown Berkeley right now.
And it's not a vibrant downtown without a movie house.
We have not bounced back from the terrible isolation of the COVID shutdowns as a city or as a culture.
It is in the interest of the city to nourish these third places.
Neither home nor work where community happens.
Libraries are great, but they close at night.
The UA theater restored could be a civic jewel.
Thirty years ago there were 20 or so movie screens in downtown Berkeley and now there are none.
Thank you for standing up for the rule of law.
Thank you.
Good evening mayor and council.
My name is Bill Schrader.
I would purposely wait to go close the last.
So I don't have to repeat what's already been said by many others.
One of the things I would like to say is I appreciate the passion by all the folks here tonight who want to save this facility.
However, sometimes it's really better to kind of step back away from the bark and look at the trees and the forest.
One thing that's not been discussed that I want to bring up is even if this group was able to find a benefactor.
I don't know Bill Gates or somebody else.
To tear this building down because it's not structurally sound and building new theater I.E. similar to the fox or the paramount.
What would that do to the freight?
The you see theater struggling don't know what impact it would have on the Greek.
But I don't think this is a good use of this particular property.
Thank you.
Okay.
Folks.
I know there's a lot of folks standing kind of near the wall.
So I just want to make sure you coming to speak.
No.
Go ahead.
My name's Horos Gray.
My grandfather went to UC Berkeley in 38.
I went to Berkeley high class of 84.
I can't afford to live in Berkeley.
I got to live on 60 second bankrupt.
But I want, but the theater should stay.
I know there's no way in a God's green earth with my $100,000 a year salary.
I'm going to be able to afford to live in that tower.
I can't move to Berkeley and live in that tower.
What you need downtown is a reason to come downtown.
And there is no reason to come downtown.
There's a, there's a, there's a two-bit punk rock club that everybody been over backwards to get to happen.
The Castro theater got, got the, got the cart once treatment getting rebuilt over in the city and recently.
You know.
You can't, you can't fill the schools in San Francisco.
Housing is not a problem.
Housing is not really a problem.
It's the, the price of rents in, in, in these pay that are the problem.
Save the, save the UC theater.
Do what they did at the Fox.
Make it happen.
The, the Fox theater single handedly revitalized downtown Oakland.
Period.
Thank you.
Our final in-person commenter, I believe.
Good evening.
My name is Susan Lippman.
I'm speaking in opposition.
I do not understand this plan that seems to,
basically remove a lot of the existing culture.
However long it's been there in downtown already to replace with homes that are not affordable.
There is a small portion that might go to a few people while the rest is just increasingly beyond anything already in existence.
And there is higher and higher buildings all coming into the same time.
Blocks have been shut down for buildings that don't have funding to come into place.
What is there?
Nothing now.
You're wanting to build a concentrated downtown for people to enjoy by only building homes for people to come into and then go elsewhere.
We need more of what's already around revitalized.
And what has been come into place as new housing is not operating in mixed use or being lived in.
They're above the average price.
Thank you.
Any other, any other in-person comments?
If not, we're going to move online.
Okay.
We currently have 11 hands raised on the Zoom, but 12.
13.
If you're interested in providing a public comment, please use the raise hand function on the Zoom.
And we will begin calling on speakers first is Gayle Simpson.
I yield my time to Madeline Roberts.
Okay.
Madeline Roberts is the next speaker and Madeline will have two minutes.
By there, Berkeley high school, class of 2012, I'm also a former home builder.
I recognize that home builders in California are trying to do the Lord's work as our policy makers.
However, let me just tell you this, EMBs.
I am typically one of you.
But in this case, there are hundreds of sites included in the Berkeley housing element, which was a herkaly and effort by the city to make pave way for housing development sites.
And that was an enormous process.
Two to seven foreshaddock is conspicuously not one of them.
Therefore, the downtown area plan, which was the culmination of hundreds of public meetings.
And I believe seven years, and an enormous democratic process that many retailers bought or rented their spaces accordingly with.
Still stands, and many of those policies are still objective.
Patrick Kennedy closed on the land knowing full well this site was not included in the updated housing element.
Therefore, we're still governed by the downtown area plan.
He took on that risk.
I don't know if he has a superb land basis, or you thought he could get away with a cyclocratic local exemption.
I'll add that's in a world, the operator that was formerly in the UAF is a UK-based company and was going through global restructuring at the time it pulled out.
So I don't believe that comment was in good faith.
Next, I'll say this, Mill Valley, the Marina District, Hayes Valley, the Mission District, Lafayette even, as of late, the Elmwood, uptown Oakland.
These are all neighborhoods you want to be in, you want to work in, you want to fall in love in, you want to meet your friends in.
These are our senses of places, these are what are called the third places. They have thought like hell to preserve their movie Peters.
I have a brother-in-law from Australia, he's only ever been to Berkeley once.
He was pre-COVID and he remembers it fondly because he went to an animation film festival in downtown Berkeley.
He remembers that vividly.
I am not an historical preservationist.
Rather, I care about providing accessible and equitable third places in downtown Jefferson.
Thank you.
Thanks here, comment.
Next is Kate Bolton Schmuckler.
Hi there.
So I just wanted to support the theater being looked over carefully by following the law.
I want to support the folks at what the theater to stay put.
Because once it's gone, it's gone.
I can't afford Berkeley either.
I live, I'm slowing it in El Serito and I hardly go to downtown Berkeley anymore.
I'm getting born and raised in the bay.
Just because there's not much to go to.
I don't I can't afford to play stuff a lot.
But theaters, you know, movies are something a lot more affordable.
And I do think we really need to value our third spaces, especially with fascism on the rise.
We need safe places together and be in a community together.
And I don't think it's either or.
It's not housing or theater.
Let's get creative and think maybe we can have both.
So.
Once is our deco icon is gone.
There's no way in hell.
Anyone's going to rebuild it to this to this beautiful glory that it is.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Next is Harvey Smith.
Harvey should be able to unmute.
I'm sorry.
I just want to point out a broader perspective here.
The national trust for historic preservation.
The country's leading preservation organization has recently featured.
The preservation of a number of historic theaters across the country.
Let me quote, Caroline the president and CEO who underscored quote.
The indisputable truth that historic preservation doesn't stifle progress.
It fuels it by reinvesting in in historic places.
We unlock their potential to foster economic development.
Sustain local character and enhance people's lives in both immediate and lasting ways.
So the question that I want to bring to you.
When I ask is Berkeley has been on the forefront of so many important issues.
Why is Berkeley now so far behind with this on on the issue of preservation.
Thank you.
Sorry.
Can I just check in really quick how many comments?
Do we have left?
Still 13.
Okay, 13.
Allow, allow, allow an hour back.
Okay, because I do want to give council a chance to take a stretch break if there are a lot more
comments left.
Or folks feeling like they need a quick stretch breaker.
You're okay.
12 more.
12.
Okay.
All right, so I think we should take a break though after the 12.
Because that is a really long time for us to be sitting.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Good evening, everyone.
With so many of the downtown construction projects stalled by the developers to a date uncertain.
Imagine if you don't require the sequa.
If you don't follow the law and this project goes the way of so many others.
You'll feel horrible.
It won't be a good, it won't be a good feeling for anybody.
So just to buy it by the law, because not only is it the law, but it'd be so refreshing in our current political
climate.
And then in the meantime, we can partner with this vast potentially 100,000 people strong community.
That's impassioned to create this theater to have a community space.
This is what we need and we can do this.
The city council is an Oakland enrichment and then the previous speaker just named so many others have
done.
Have done that.
Have partnered with the community and preserved theaters in their cities we can do this.
Please require the sequa.
Thank you.
Million King.
Yes.
This is David Macbad and Elliott on my wife's computer.
I'm a writer and Berkeley resident of 16 years.
You know, I used to take pride in telling my friends I lived within walking distance of four
movie theaters.
Now I lamented the destruction and droughtscape, not just a city pop mark by a band and
storefronts but scarred by entire rows of blight.
Our movie's dead.
Consider.
In summer 23, seen in Crow that Marvin Hymers box office success has re-awaken America's movie going
muscle.
Last Thanksgiving, the Hollywood Reporter boasted domestic revenue for the five day weekend sword
to an all-time high.
And just this past week in the latest barbiness double features for it another blockbuster holiday
album.
That foot traffic and energy can return to downtown Berkeley.
See the sellout lines at Vampa's single screen.
See the thriving corner of college in Ashley anchored by the Elm with theater.
See the families flocking to Berkeley's movies in the park each summer.
I enthusiastically voted for the Manhattanization of Berkeley.
But I took for granted that the vision called for bustling streets for arriving restaurants and
movie theaters.
You know, like Manhattan.
The next is Chance, Bereci, Bereci.
Anyway, thank you.
Good evening Mary Sheen, members of the City Council.
My name is Chance Bereci, I'm here speaking on behalf of East Bay for everyone.
It's interesting that some of the applicants here are talking as though the council has a discretion
to conduct a full-secret review or not.
That's really not the question here before us tonight.
The question is whether or not the CAB was acting in accordance with the law and with AB 1633,
when they granted a categorical exemption.
I think the evidence is massively substantial that they were.
And past that, nothing here really matters.
This is a question about who's side the law is on and whether the CAB acted correctly.
Now getting into those extra legal concerns,
the only way to maintain attractive amenities in downtown Berkeley is to have people that live near them.
And what cuts me up about this is that if the applicants had taken all this money they raised
and donated it to the new Parkway and Oakland, for example,
that could have done some real good for independent theater.
This will not.
Thank you.
Okay, next we have Andrew Talbot.
Hi, yes, I'm glad for the opportunity to be able to talk about this.
I want to second the person who said that you shouldn't listen to us.
The people that are willing and able to show up or talk on Zoom.
This started a thing, or not represented at Berkeley.
You were elected to make decisions for Berkeley, and also you were responsible for the law.
And hopefully you do not reject this housing, and have to get sued again,
because we will refer to the housing.
So please once again follow the law and approve this housing.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thanks.
Next is Kelly Hammergren.
Okay.
I wish we still had film in Berkeley.
Are you getting an echo, because I am.
No, no echo here.
Okay.
I wish we still had film in Berkeley, but if you should approve this project, please apply to this project.
The left permit ordinance.
It is written as one year, and so far it's rarely enforced, but council has previously made a section.
Exception and applied two years to the lapse permit.
I think I don't want it anymore dead zones and holes with stall project.
In our city, and so I ask which you would apply a two year lapse permit, if they're not initiating construction, the entitlement goes away.
So that's that's my comment.
Thank you.
Thanks, Kelly.
You're going to finish right on text.
We have Sandra Castleton.
Hi, I can't tell if I'm getting any.
Yes, we can hear you.
Hi, Mary, you should issue an council.
My name is Sandra Castleton.
I'm an Agents professor, Berkeley resident and parent of a community.
I'm a parent of a graduating Berkeley high student.
As a parent of a student who has been essentially living in the downtown area because of Berkeley high, it's been.
It's been very, it's been very tough and disheartening.
And I want to say that I think that the idea that this question is housing versus.
A movie theater is a false equivalency.
I think that this group is rightly asking for due diligence.
And I think of San Francisco now desperately trying to bring people back into the downtown.
And I think what we would see in very wealthy people.
Thank you, sir.
I could just hear a comment.
Next is Mark Siegel.
Hello.
Actually Sam here.
Cal alum who's always enjoyed the beautiful details in the UA one I went.
One only need to look to the San Francisco box to see what regret of just drawing the cinema palace looks like.
Contrary to Patrick Kennedy's falsehoods, the UA could be more than a cinema.
It could be a multi-purpose event space for live theater lectures, conferences, concerts, festivals, you name it.
There are notably more appropriate sites for housing and Berkeley, but this theater is irreplaceable.
In LA, the Egyptian face seemingly insurmountable structural issues yet Netflix restored it to high praise.
Follow the law and help pave the way for a brighter future for Berkeley.
One got it by community vision rather than Kennedy's greed.
Thank you.
Next we have Donna West.
Wait, hold on.
Donna West.
Hi.
Okay.
Thank you.
Good evening Mayor City Council City staff.
I am a 40 year resident of the Bay Area and I understand the housing and the prices that we have to have.
But let's move into this new building.
Where is the entertainment in downtown Berkeley that we will have to go to?
Do the review both of these buildings may coexist as residents of the new building.
We need a place to gather and enjoy with each other.
These theaters are open across the country.
They are booming now.
Please leave the residents living in the apartment complex that we are building a place to gather for movie theater entertainment.
To get out of that closet living.
These two buildings may coexist.
Just let the public go in and see behind the partitions.
There are historic.
Thank you.
I'm sorry your time is up.
Next is Cheryl that a little former council member.
Thank you.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
So it's amazing that the owners of several theaters and filmmakers were at the meeting tonight.
Thank you to the Grand Lake, which is an amazing theater.
I just saw freaky tails there, premier.
And wouldn't that be nice if Berkeley could have a theater downtown to hold an event that was so amazing.
But Berkeley's downtown is vacant.
You know, the planning department always sides with Patrick Kennedy or any other multi-million dollar developer.
You shouldn't do the sequa.
Do what you're supposed to do when you're supposed to do it.
We market rate housing is not needed in Berkeley anymore.
And why are we looking at eagle at the whole time?
It's really not open.
Here your time is up.
Thank you.
Next is David Roberts.
I yield my time to Madeline Roberts to finish your statement.
Oh, you should.
Well, she already spoke.
You can't speak two different times.
Okay, then I'll speak.
Yes, go ahead.
I.
I don't professor at UC Berkeley.
I attended graduate school at Berkeley.
I loved going to the movies every time I had an evening off.
I recently attended Elmwood.
And it was a wonderful experience to go there during the day.
It no longer exists in downtown Berkeley.
You can do the right thing.
You can impose.
Follow the strict letter of the law.
Not what you staff tells you that they accomplished by their quote-unquote
Secret Review provisions.
Thank you.
Okay.
Madeline already spoke and Harvey already spoke.
So that's.
That's all of the online.
Commenters.
Okay, thank you very much.
I'd like to give us actually 15 minutes to take a break because.
I think we've been sitting a while and I know we want to do some comments.
So I'm really trying to model some self-care for us.
So I encourage all of you to get up and take a stretch break as well.
Have some water.
So thank you.
We'll be back recording stopped.
Thank you.
O, o, here we go. Hi, folks. Our break has come to an end. If I could please have you take your seats.
Thank you, everyone.
I appreciate the lively chatter. That's nice. Okay. All right. So we have just to recap. We did the staff report, presentation from the
appellant, presentation from the applicant. We took public comment, both in person on the morning in progress.
And now we are back in person to go over council comments and questions. So I will look to my
parliamentarian here to see if anyone would like to begin.
Oh, and I want to just acknowledge that we have both council members,
Kesherwani and Traygub, I think, still on our Zoom. So perhaps actually council members, if one of
you would like to go first since you're online, council member Traygub and Kesherwani are you there?
Okay, yes. I do not have any questions or comments at this time. Thank you. Okay. Thank you,
apologies. Okay. Go ahead, council member Traygub. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and just to
clarify, is this question for me or questions and comments? Okay. Thank you. Okay.
I would like to thank everyone for devoting their time to be with us tonight. Thank you to
members of the public for being here as well as the many members of the public who have written in
with their comments. I have reviewed every single comment that I had the opportunity to review.
Let me start by painting a picture. The city has a deficit that is only likely to be aggravated
by the current political and financial situation in our nation and the world. The city manager
just issued a hiring fees. Parkly is just one of the American cities going through these financial
austerity measures. I also was just in a meeting with key state officials and the financial situation
at the state level does not look any more rosy. I did not want for office to shy away from difficult
decisions. But this one is undoubtedly one of the hardest ones that I hope I will have to make
because of its irreversibility and permanent nature. I'm a big supporter of the arts of a royal
and performing arts in particular. It breaks my heart truly to even contemplate an option of
demolishing a building that I have found memories of going to the movies in as a college student
that can never be replaced. The district that I'm honored to serve is unique in its richness and
diversity of art organizations, particularly in the performing arts. I've spoken to many
representatives of that industry. The financial picture of many arts organizations is pretty grim.
If anyone wants to be able to join me in saving the part of the arts district that we still have,
whether it be the UC theater or the freight or a water or a Berkeley web,
I urge you to please join me and consider supporting them by coming to see a movie or a concert
or a show or a concert there. I've met with people who agree in concept that historic buildings
and the UA theater should be protected and saved. In reality, unfortunately, the city has not
received any other offers or proposals for the UA theater. So this is the dilemma that I and my colleagues
are faced with. Deny the appeal and foregoal the construction of housing units that we desperately need
including dozens of low-income units or upholding the appeal in the hope that something happens
and somebody with millions of dollars buys this property. We have delegated it.
Possibly has to divert down to the studs to rebuild and then finds a profitable way to recreate the theater in it.
The first option promises to protect and restore the facade and the lobby and provides housing units.
This option will stop the dilapidation of the historic building, save the parts that are still in a condition
to be restored and also bring the city tax revenue that we desperately need as a community.
The second option has no guarantees of anything happening within the next several years
or beyond that. Unfortunately, I have not heard any concrete or even possibly realistic plans that
materialize and cleaning the wide investor to preserve the building the way it is. If I had a magic
one and in the absence of a new state law, AB 1633, I would have given more time to the people for
serious about preserving the theater to come up with realistic actionable leads that could not only
preserve the building but also generate the revenue to sustain it and bring much needed revenue and
liveliness to the city and district. That is not what is before us tonight, however.
I will just say both supporters and opponents of the project and I have listened to every one of
your comments and have taken meticulous notes on your key points. Both of you have implored us to
follow the law and do the right thing. In the absence of any case law on the matter, as this is a
new law that has not been tested, I am following the recommendation of our city attorney, which I believe
to be legally sound. I will also note there was a comment about looking at lapsed permits. This is not
this is not before us tonight, but please know that my office is in conversation with the city
manager about what to do if something is demolished and then construction is not initiated within
a reasonable amount of time. Before my final decision tonight, I would like to ask staff the applicant
an appellant of questions and provide information for both my and the public's benefit to better
understand the issue at hand. For the staff, can you comment on the question, there was a comment
that was made about the developer not legally required to retain the lobby or the features inside
the theater that our team to be historic and must be preserved? Can you speak to the force and effect
of conditions of approval in the item before us as well as what steps could be taken should there be
a failure by the applicant to comply with such conditions of approval? Real quick, before you respond,
councilmember, could you just give us a sense of how many questions you have and if you're asking
both applicant and appellant, I'd want to ask that they come closer to the front so that they can respond.
That is my only question for staff and I'd have three questions, a piece for the applicant and
appellant, which I will ask in rapid fire format to say the little bit of time. Okay, thank you.
Thank you for the question, councilmember. So the lobby is not considered in any of the studies
as one of the character defining a features and so that was not one of the features that was asked to
be preserved and LBC did not list it as one of the features that should be preserved in its designation.
The Zab did attach a condition of approval to the permit requiring a historic resource inventory
of the parts of the building. I think mainly the interior parts of the buildings that should be
studied and put into an inventory and submitted to land use planning prior to final design review.
The project, the inventory needs to go to final design review and be subject to DRC review
before final design review is approved.
Thank you. What happens if if the tail end of the process what accountability does the city have to
make sure that the applicant stands by these conditions of approval?
Has they agreed to the conditions of approval of the permits?
The city will not approve the building permits until all the conditions are met.
Thank you. DRC is the design review committee of the commission of the city.
For the applicant, can you please describe the state of the building?
Can you describe which historical components are going to be preserved and restored in their
entirety or partially if you have that information at the moment?
Sorry, four questions. Can you please elaborate on the construction timeline that you estimate?
Can you also please provide some information regarding the estimated revenue to the city after
your proposed project is complete? Okay, is this on?
Well, the building that we're proposing is probably going to be worth north of $120 million in taxable
real estate. So the city's property tax would probably be $2 to $3 million a year.
And the state of the building right now, the the theater part of it is we have photographs of it over there.
It's non-ductal unreinforced concrete. It's spalling the rebar in it is rotting and resting.
You can see photographs of it in much the same fashion actually of that condominium in Florida that collapsed when the
rebar in it rusted and it lost the structural integrity.
The lobby, however, is in pretty decent shape. It doesn't show water damage nor spalling of the concrete.
And the facade in front is also in decent shape. The part that is the remains of the the lower one third of it has been removed
and we're going to be adding new storefront there and then restoring the upper two thirds of it per the request of the LPC.
Thank you. Let me just make sure. Yeah.
Construction timeline to the extent you can estimate that given the current situation nationally.
That is very hard to predict. It's the the the the the the the the proposed terrors are
good as significantly impact construction materials and it's it's really
a cipher right now to be honest we have no idea what's what's steel lumber
components from Mexico and elsewhere are going to cost but assuming that that stabilizes once we build the building
it will take approximately 24 months. Thank you and I do have three questions for the appellant.
Could you please share some specific ideas that you think are worth pursuing in order to protect and we
have to locate the theater. Have you encountered anyone who is willing to invest time and money
into the preservation and rehabilitation of the theater? And according to the information you have
can you please share what's actual condition that the other is in? So I'm going to address I'm
the attorney for the appellant. I'm going to address the first question and ask other members of the
appellants to address the second and third questions. Can you identify those people so that they can
start moving towards the front? Please.
Okay. So ideas for rehabilitating. I think that was the first question. So one of the things
that an EIR would do would be to investigate ideas for rehabilitating the project. I mean the building
are what other feasible alternatives there might be to this particular project description. So I do
not have those ideas because that investigation has not happened and exempting the project from
sequa would prevent that investigation from happening and that's the entire point of my presentation
as that investigation should happen so that those ideas can be vetted publicly.
The sequel has a public process when you have an EIR. This exemption process is kind of quasi-public,
because you have an appeal right from the ZAB, but the public participation is not built
in. Whereas if you have an EIR, the public participation is built in, and at that point you
would have a free forum for ideas that would be alternative to this particular project.
Thank you.
Okay, council member, your other two questions were for these folks, I think, to answer.
We have a wishes to answer them.
I forgot to introduce myself earlier in Rose Ellis.
Can you reframe the question again, please?
Absolutely. Have you encountered anyone who is willing to invest time and money
into the preservation and rehabilitation of the theater?
And according to the information you have, can you please share what's structural condition the theater is in?
Ellen, would you come up here?
Well, and we did submit a rebuttal to their structural report and that is part of our appeal,
and so you should have had that to read, and that was written by a couple of people in our group
who are theater historians and also people of run theaters.
I'm going to have Ellen Michelle and come up and explain the condition of the concrete.
But I just want to say if we had come up with people who wanted to buy this theater or come up with money,
then we would have been accused of being a self-interest trying to take over the property from Kennedy.
So that was kind of a no-win situation.
We only have five months to really, I'm sorry, five hearings to fight for the theater,
and we don't feel that it was our purview, our responsibility to find somebody to buy the building.
We're here, we're here to argue about sequel and the law.
I think that that answers the council member's question.
Okay, he's going to discuss, well, I just wanted to add to that.
You know, we are, you know, we've been accused of raising money.
We only raised money at the end.
We've just been working basically off nothing.
And so I'm just going to say this unfair on this community group to suddenly be a deep pocketed multi-million-dollar development interest to provide an alternative.
I'm sorry, I don't think the council member's question.
I think my question has been answered unless there's something you'd like to add on the question.
We're just trying to explain.
Excuse me, I'm sorry.
I understand.
And I think his question was just whether or not you had identified for it.
And it's okay that you had a lot of questions.
It's just a theater, and there's definitely, but if you destroy all options or loss, I think.
I'm, I'm there, student.
And okay, so you're going to answer the question.
If you want to speak to the, I believe that your question is about the structure structure.
Yes.
The developer just referred to this as an unre-enforced concrete building.
That just is not what the definition of this building is.
unre-enforced concrete is concrete without steel and re-bar.
This building is the same construction as the Grand Lake.
We have some spawning issues on the back of my theater a few years ago that sort of looked like that.
And what you do when you have that is you expose the area.
You sand down the re-bar and the steel to remove the rust.
You've then you treat it with for a stoleum or something.
And then you put the concrete back.
It's what they do on the Golden Gate Bridge year in year out.
It's what's done on any 20s or 30s or teens, steel and concrete building.
That building is a fortress.
The Grand Lake is the same way.
It's steel everywhere and concrete.
It is a high quality building.
I think you can't call it unre-enforced concrete.
I think you've addressed the question.
Thank you so much.
So I appreciate everyone going into detail.
And I've done my very best to review the full body of the record and the communications that we have received.
We are bounded by state law.
It is fast moving and it has changed in this regard.
Regardless of what happens tonight though.
I think we can all agree and we will welcome everyone's engagement and ideas about what we can do to ensure that downtown remains.
We are able to do this by an order becomes again a vibrant, safe, accessible, affordable destination.
Thank you.
Thank you, council member.
I'm going to move on to council member Bartlett.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And I want to thank the people for your energy tonight.
It's a really warm the heart to see people care about something in our community.
And I always encourage it.
And the arts are very special to me and to us.
And you right.
We should have a movie theater downtown.
We should have things downtown.
We should have places to walk to.
This culture of our city is one of walkability and enjoyment.
However, it seems as if this moment is not the one.
And you know, what we did lose three theaters and one short time the same way.
The same way open lost three sports teams.
Not a good look.
However, this project will not be the one to save that condition.
It is out of reach and scale.
The cost is prohibitive.
And the very nature of it is just beyond the scope of this city to rescue.
And nature of this project as well.
In terms of the commercial aspect.
That trains up the building.
And irrespective of that.
And I do again want to thank you for your commentary.
Your energy.
Your red outfits.
And all that.
I want to thank you.
But again, this is about sequence.
And this is about.
This is a.
This is very specific.
I think we're speaking of today.
And you know, I wish you had been here two weeks ago.
You had seen me fight.
Using sequence with all my powers.
And all my energy.
To require another look.
At benzene in the soil.
Of a gas station.
That's being demolished to make an apartment building.
Because you see I was concerned about the actual.
Environmental quality.
To residents in the building.
Neighbors in the building.
Workers in the soil in the building.
Benzene gets no no destroys your nervous system.
And it really gives you horrible life.
So when when you apply your energies in this way.
When you when you marshal resources.
And the name of sequa.
To confront.
What's really an emotional appeal.
Or a commercial appeal.
As opposed to.
The environment.
It does a disservice.
To that law.
And in dangers.
Are people everywhere as it gets weakened as a result.
So tonight you help discredit.
A very important law to protect our children and families in California.
And so.
Folks.
Sorry.
Excuse me.
So.
It's time to speak as over.
Again.
Thank you for your energy.
Thank you.
Okay.
Moving on to council member.
Back.
Thanks.
Mayer.
Set a few questions.
And then some comments.
I'll start.
Thank you.
The presentation.
Thanks.
The applicant for being here.
For everyone.
The community for being here.
I wanted to just focus.
It's really quickly on slide.
10.
And I know it appears throughout the record.
And I know it appears throughout the record as well.
It just helped me understand.
This is in the discussion of the historic resource evaluation.
In the comment here that.
The significant loss of integrity negates the properties ability to convey
Significance.
He talked a little bit about what that means.
When you talk about a significant loss of integrity.
Is that structural integrity?
Is that historical integrity?
Like what is that?
What does that mean?
I may let the applicant.
Sure.
Give a little bit more information on this.
They may have their historic resource experts.
Yeah.
Be able to speak more on this.
But I believe that the integrity is in reference to.
The ability of the the characteristics.
The remaining features in the building to convey the significance of the stark resource.
So there have been a number of alterations of the building over time.
Throughout.
The decades and since it's been designated a historic resource in the state register.
That have diminished.
The features of the building.
And diminished their capacities to signal to convey the historic significance of the building.
I agree.
You know, we do as a council have an obligation to follow along.
I think all of my colleagues here are thinking about that and wrestling with that very carefully.
We're trying our very best to follow the laws.
Is it is demonstrated us under the A to A under SB 330 and under AB 1633 and how that intersects with sequela.
So one other question.
Yeah, and so again, as I understand kind of what we are to do tonight as we consider this appeal.
It's really considering whether the project's eligibility for the infill development exemption is correct.
And whether or not the project meets the criteria for the historical resource exception.
I mean, that's really our function as I understand it.
And I've listened a lot kind of to the presentation into the arguments and I've read a lot from the experts.
So I think the one question last question I would just ask and I'd ask this to staff and I'd also ask this each the same question to the applicant and the appellant.
Because again, I think there's there's broad agreement that preserving the facade is valuable and is preserving an element that does convey historic significance.
I think preserving elements of the of the lobby also provide that function.
So my question to each of the parties is is the auditorium in its current state a character defining feature that conveys historic significance.
And I'd like to ask the same question of staff as well as the applicant and the appellant.
So for staff, I can give a little background.
Staff in consideration of the applicant's consultant as well as the city's consultant found that there's substantial evidence that the auditorium no longer is a character defining feature.
And no longer contains the significance of the building.
And that's because of the current.
The current.
The manifestation of it the the the the the the the repair the quality of the environment.
The state of the state of and the the quality of the the auditorium as it is.
Having undergone all the alterations over the years.
Okay, but as the applicant answers the same question is the auditorium in its current state in your view.
A character defining feature that conveys the continues to convey historic significance.
And that's the appellant all so it's an instant same question.
Just want everybody's views on this pretty good piece.
This photograph right here shows how the once grand 1800 seat theater has been carved up.
Eighteen hundred seat theater has been carved up into four new theaters.
The ceiling has been destroyed.
The decorative moldings throughout the sides.
And elsewhere have all been moved and destroyed.
And that has been cataloged actually by the architectural historian.
Who says that.
The pricinium and auditorium has been altered.
The original theater organs and grill have been destroyed.
The extreme and decorative finishes have been destroyed.
The lobby and murals have been altered.
The original theater seats and lounges have been altered.
Essentially all of the character writing character writing character.
All of the character features.
In the original theater have been removed or destroyed.
The lobby and the facade are the sole remaining portions of the building that are capable being restored to their original close to their original status.
The rest of the building has been modified beyond recognition and repair.
The building also, I didn't expect when I said it was non-reinforced concrete.
It's non-ductal concrete, which is minimal steel reinforcement, but also a seismic hazard to the city and to the adjacent properties.
Thank you. Thank you.
Trust the question.
Yes. That's the point.
I'm hesitant to have these questions just to be opportunities for people to extend their presentation.
So folks, I just want to ask that people respond to the questions directly and try to sound topic.
It's just really like, this to me is the crux of the whole argument.
And so I just, I just really want to point.
But yeah. But I agree with you. Thank you.
So the information I have is the answer to the question is yes.
And I'll just read you from the conclusion of the Rincon report, which is the city's unconsolptal, which is the second report that they did.
And it said, those several aspects of the distinctive art decade designer proposed to be retained,
the proposed demolition of the former theater auditorium would result in loss of integrity of design materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association.
There would no longer reflect its historic significance for its role in the depression area development of downtown Berkeley,
specifically as a purpose-built entertainment venue for motion pictures.
So that's what your consultants said.
There's also a two gentleman here, Alan Michon, who heard from earlier, who knows what it looks like in there,
from personal experience and Gary Parks, who also has personal visual experience of the ceiling.
The question that was asked is whether there is architectural and value in the auditorium, what is there.
I'd like to use the developers exhibit right here.
If you look, this is what's going on above the ceiling of the new auditoriums in there.
The original ceiling is intact.
It's suspending the ceilings of the multiplex auditoriums by wires that have been placed up through into the attic,
and tied off to the steel and the rebar in the attic.
Also here, you can see that elements of the major pricinium are still intact.
This is an easy restoration.
I've seen theaters with stored around the country where there's been extensive water damage over the course of decades,
and has melted much of the ornamental plaster.
The Lowes King in Brooklyn is a perfect example of that.
It was an absolute wreck before restoration is now the pride of that burrow.
Please envision this theater as something that can host broadway touring shows.
It can be restored and it's true.
Thank you.
I appreciate the answers.
I know there are some, again, responses to some of those criticisms in the left coast report,
which I also find useful.
It says that, again, the state meant characterizing the theater space.
Fills have knowledge of the loss of auditoriums in integrity, and it's subsequent inability
to be a character defining feature, a special space of the property in the longer,
that the national register supports the conclusion that the theater does not qualify as a character defining feature,
particularly when taking to account its current condition.
So I know there has been some discussion about that on the record, and so, again, I appreciate the conversation here.
So let me just finish up with my comment.
So let me just say as my lived experience as someone who loves the arts, participating in the arts values,
the arts, and the role of the arts here in Berkeley.
I've been a choral singer, my entire life, high school college.
I met my partner Larry in our college chorus, so it's a very personal thing to me.
I sang with a symphony chorus in San Francisco for 15 years.
I'm a frequent attendee of arts events in Berkeley.
And I firmly believe that downtown Berkeley must continue to be a thriving arts ecosystem,
and we have to foster it.
I totally agree with that, and I want to dedicate my time on the council to doing everything I can to make that possible.
But we also think I have to separate some of the business argument, and some of historical argument from the legal issue in front of us.
And I do think the record is, again, I know there is some dispute, but I'm comfortable with what staff has come up with on the record here.
Again, I don't think this is the end of the discussion about the role of the arts in Berkeley,
but as I think my colleague, Councillor Bartlett said, this just may not be the particular project where we can accomplish that particular goal.
But it is a worthy goal, and I share the vision that people here have.
I just think that given the circumstances around this particular project and all the elements of it,
the discussion about the historical value with the law is telling us to do.
I'm going to support staff's recommendation here.
So thank you.
Thank you, Councillor member.
I am grateful to this place and celebrate the memories that have been created here.
And I hear the passion and enthusiasm of everyone who has spoken here tonight.
And I love American history and architectural history, and I can see how this building exemplifies that.
And I also wish that we lived in a world where a movie theater was profitable or a possible business to have here, but we don't.
We cannot keep our city as a museum.
Some of my constituents are forced to live in their cars or couchsurf or overcrowded because they can't afford housing.
And I'm happy to share that rents have gone down in the past few years partly due to housing development at all income levels.
We still have work to do.
Someone joke that students won't live in this tower.
The alternative, historically, has been sleeping in cars or for people to one bedroom apartment,
or in UC dorm housing, double the price of new market rate units.
I hear that people want affordable housing, 27 units of very low income units is a lot, and is more than the zero that we have now.
And the city will be building 100% affordable housing with the mitigation fees mandated by the city.
This housing is incredibly expensive to build, and to be able to meet the urgent housing needs of our community,
we much leverage the capital available to us.
And I recognize that our position here today is specifically on the arguments made by the appellants,
and to which I agree with the analysis done by our planning department and legal department,
and we'll be supporting a denial of this appeal.
Thank you.
So I just want to check and see if anyone has any more questions for the applicant or for the appellant,
because if not, I would like to close the public hearing itself.
Okay, then I'd like to close the public hearing.
Let me just need a motion for that.
Move back.
Move, we close the public hearing.
Okay.
To close the public hearing.
Counts a member or a kiss or wine?
Yes.
Tap on this.
Absent Bartlett.
Yes.
Trigger.
Hi.
Okay.
Yes.
Blackbee.
Yes.
I'm going to par.
Yes.
Amber.
Yes.
And E.C.
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Oh, we're hearing is closed.
Thank you.
Council member.
I'm going to par for your comments.
And Council member Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Excuse me.
First, I do want to say, like, as Council member Treegov said, that I've looked through the record very, very carefully.
I think I've read most of not all of the hundreds of comments that have come in.
It's possible that I missed a couple.
But I really was trying to be very diligent in reading all the public comments and listening tonight.
I want to take a step away very quickly from the quasi-judicial role that we occupy here and the questions.
The legal questions really that are before us tonight.
I completely understand why people want to see the United Artists continue to serve as a movie theater.
As the only Council member who still has a first run movie theater in his district, the Elmwood, I'm extremely sympathetic to the sense of loss that came with the closure of this cultural institution.
And which will come when the rear of the building is demolished.
I know I would personally be devastated if the Elmwood cinema were to close.
But reality is that cinemas are an incredibly tough business right now.
There was a time when a typical US resident would go to the movies at least once a week.
Now the majority of people only go a handful of times per year.
65% of people would rather watch movies at home.
And people tend to prefer to see movies on extra large screens with state-of-the-art sound which are historic theaters generally can't feasibly accommodate.
Our task tonight is not to rule on the merits of theaters though in general or in downtown Berkeley specifically.
But I know that's why a lot of you are here.
I appreciate your comments and I wanted to address this.
Movie theaters are an incredible community asset but nearly every effort we have made to attract or keep cinemas in Berkeley has fallen flat in the face of these overall cultural headwinds.
Even though these cannot be taken into account when we adjudicate whether this project is net all applicable requirements.
I want folks to know I understand their feelings around it and appreciate their passion.
Having said this what we have to decide tonight is whether the project is net applicable local and state requirements and can therefore move forward.
I feel that director Klein and planning staff have done an excellent job reviewing this project and taking it through the appropriate processes.
Their presentation tonight separately summarized the issues before us for consideration and affirming this ad decision is the sensible approach in my view.
I therefore want belabor the points they presented this evening and in staff report and I'm not heard anything in the public testimony tonight that would lead me to believe that the staff report is inaccurate.
Or that the Zab's approval of the project was wrongly decided.
Having reviewed the staff report and attended an information listened to testimony tonight.
I believe the project conforms to the applicable regulations and procedures and that we must move it forward per the requirements of state law.
Most importantly the proposed project would maintain and restore this features that have been identified as contributing to this historic resources.
And I believe that satisfies what would be required and sufficiently addresses any secret issue.
Thank you. I'll be supporting it.
The staff proposal.
The Zab decision.
Thank you council member council member Keith.
Thank you mayor.
Many people tonight portrayed the UA theater as like this last great cultural venue that we're losing.
And we'll have a deserted downtown.
And.
Okay, you see theater, Berkeley rep or rural theater, specific film archive, freight and salvage, the marsh, the back room cornerstone.
That's just downtown.
Go a half mile out and there's more.
We have problems downtown.
We have vacant storefronts but cultural venues are not the problem.
It's the vacant storefronts that are the problem that make it feel dead.
That's what the UA theater is doing right now.
And it's not going to come back as it was.
I understand.
How hard it was it is to say goodbye to this place full of memories I have seen probably 15 movies there.
But change is inevitable.
Does anyone here remember 80s ice cream parlour.
Yeah, I still agree that place.
I think it closed in 1992.
I mean, I feel you.
I don't disregard your feelings.
It's very sad to say goodbye.
My son loves the UA theater because he thought they had the best tasting water at the water fountain.
I don't know why but that makes me cry to think about it going away.
But the thing is for the thing is, excuse me, if we want those cultural venues to survive and we want a vibrant downtown,
we have to move towards growth.
We have to say goodbye to this.
It's not coming back and we need to instead bring more people downtown and support the vibrancy of our city.
I'm passing my vote to deny the appeal to support this ab decision because I really honestly believe all things
considered this is in the best interest of the future of our city.
Thank you.
Thank you council member.
I just want to check and make sure council member Keshe wanted doesn't have any comments or doesn't have her hand raised.
No, I do not.
I'm ready to vote.
Thank you.
Thanks.
So just some brief comments.
As everyone said, I really love the theater.
I am very sad that we don't have any movie theaters downtown.
I support third spaces.
My parents were in the film industry.
I grew up with it my whole life.
But I also understand our needs for housing.
And I trust our staff and their analysis.
I want to comment as something that was made a comment that was made earlier about the aerial 3D view image being a fraudulent image.
And you know, just want to highlight for folks that this was supposed to be focused on this project.
So things change on the map around it.
So I just want to say that what they shared was not.
And as we, as was mentioned earlier with Council Member Trega, we don't have funds to save this theater. The Fox Theater was was funded with redevelopment funds, I believe. And these are funds that we just don't have. I will really do want to encourage folks to support some of our other spaces here, but I am also in support of moving forward staff recommendations. And so with that, I'm going to ask if there's a motion.
If we do the motion. So we can, I move the staff of staff recommendation. A second from Council Member Humber.
Thank you. And since we've got folks online, I'm going to ask the clerk to take the roll, please.
Okay. To affirm the decision of the Zoning Adjustments Board and reject the appeal, Council Member Kester wanting.
Yes.
One is absent, Bartlett. Yes. Tragab.
Aye.
Okay. Yes.
Black to be. Yes. Unipara. Yes.
Humber. Yes. And Mayor Eiji. Yes.
Okay. Motion carried.
Okay.
Thank you, folks. I'd like to see if there is a move region. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. And we need to...
We're meeting Council Member Kester wanting to adjourn.
Thank you. Yeah.
No, I'm sorry.
Bartlett. Yes.
A Tragab.
You're welcome to speak with us afterwards, but I'm a Tragab.
Excuse me. Excuse me. I'm sorry, but now is not your time to speak. Please, please continue.
Excuse me. Excuse me. You can wait until afterwards from meeting has not yet adjourned.
I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Humber. Okay. Do you adjourn? Yes.
Black to be. Yes. Unipara. Yes.
And Mayor Eiji. Yes. Okay. We're adjourned.
Thank you, clerk. Thank you, everyone, for being here this evening.
Thank you for your comments.
Recording stopped.