The Library Gardens Balcony Collapse was a Top 10 Bay Area News Story in 2015, but are We Doing Better in Preventing Construction Problems?
As we thought about 2015, and read the year-end reviews by our local newspapers, the one story that mentioned Berkeley was the balcony collapse that killed six and hospitalized seven young people, mostly students visiting here from Ireland. Both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Contra Costa Times included that story in their list of the Bay Area’s ten most important stories of 2015.
Then we came across an e-mail dated December 9, 2015 that was sent to the Council and Planning Department with the subject line of: “Water damage to new construction in Berkeley.” For some unknown reason, that e-mail didn’t turn up in a Council packet until January 19, 2016, more than a month later.
The e-mail concerned the six-story, mixed use (commercial on ground floor with 99 residential units above) project currently under construction on the north east corner of Shattuck and Dwight Way. The author of the e-mail was concerned about the “several floors of wood and particle/strand board that are completely open and about to be saturated with rain (again).”
When there is a letter in a Council packet that captures a member of the Council’s attention, he/she will ask that it be referred to the City Manager for response. BNC has never known such a request made by a Council Member to be denied. If that doesn’t happen, letters are simply “noted and filed.” On January 19th, none of the Council Members referred the letter. That doesn’t mean that it didn’t catch the attention of the Planning Department, but this is such an important issue we thought we’d poke around to see what was going on. This was what we found.
Among all of the discussion about the tragedy of the balcony collapse at the fairly recently constructed Library Gardens Building, a letter dated February 3, 2004 from Berkeley resident Gale Garcia came to light. Her letter was sent to a group of people that included the Chief Building Official, Mayor Bates, and Mark Rhoades who was then working for the city of Berkeley. The problem cited was that several new buildings (specifically named were The Berkeleyan at Oxford and Berkeley Way completed in 1998, University Lofts at University and Grant completed in 1997 and the Gaia Building on Allston Way completed in 2001) had undergone rapid exterior stucco deterioration and required major repair. All were considered examples of “sustainable development” and had received praise from the Downtown Berkeley Association, the Pacific Builders Conference and Berkeley Design Advocates for “innovative mixed-use development.”
In investigating stucco failure, Ms. Garcia came across a product called OSB (oriented strand board) often used instead of plywood. (BNC looked the product up and found that OSB is also known as “sterling board, aspenite and smartply” and that OSB seems to be used extensively in Europe. It’s an engineered wood particle board formed by adding adhesives and then compressing the layers of wood strands.) Ms. Garcia’s letter pointed out that there are many 1920 buildings in Berkeley that still have their original stucco cladding, but that leaking stucco has become a nationwide problem in post-1980 buildings. She requested an investigation of the connection between the use of OSB and the examples of major exterior stucco deterioration in recent construction in Berkeley. BNC could find no evidence that anything came of that request.
Putting that aside for the moment, the December 9, 2015 e-mail, (which FYI was not authored by Ms. Garcia) pointed out some information about OSB that was obtained from Egger.com, an international manufacturer of OSB and other wood products. (BNC confirmed that this information is on their website.) This is what Egger says:
- “As a general rule, OSB must always be protected against direct contact with water (rain, snow, infiltrations) during all stages of its lifetime.”
- Negative impacts of excessive moisture upon OSB: “Excessive moisture generally favors the creation and spread of fungus and mould inside the building envelope or on the surface of building components and their connections when ventilation is poor (room corners, wall-to-ceiling edge, balconies, etc.) but most important is that a moisture content >18% reduces the load-bearing capacity of the wood structural elements.”
- “The builder is fully liable for any damage caused by improper protection of the building elements against rain during all stages of construction process. Anticipation and effective preventive measures for avoiding such unpleasant situation is therefore mandatory.”
With all of the development that is occurring in Berkeley, BNC wants to ensure both the safety of residents and that the promise of creating a sustainable community is achieved. To that end, BNC has sent a letter to the City Manager asking the following questions:
- Is OSB being used in the construction of the six-story currently under construction on the north east corner of Shattuck and Dwight Way?
- If so, what steps has the City taken to ensure that the OSB has been protected against direct contact with water?
- In July 2015 when the Council approved measures for the city of Berkeley to set higher construction standards, one such measure was to have contractors retain a third party, independent inspector. When does this third party, independent inspector make an inspection and how often is this inspection supposed to occur?
- Has an independent third party, inspector been retained for the building on the north east corner of Shattuck and Dwight Way? Has such an inspection occurred and what are the results?
- There are a number of other buildings currently under construction at this time in Berkeley. Please provide a list of all mixed use and multi-family residential use buildings currently under construction, and the answers that would apply to each of them under questions #1 through 4 above.
- On July 15, 2015, the City Council indicated they wanted to adopt standards that would require State approval to implement. What has the City done to pursue that goal and what is the current status of this request?
BNC will let readers know what response we receive.
What’s Ahead with the Berkeley Campus?
There was a whole lot of talk during 2015 of how California residents were being denied entrance into the University of California system while out-of-state students were being admitted in unprecedented numbers — the reason being that the larger tuitions paid by out-of-state students was necessary in order to balance campus budgets. UC recently responded by stating they will increase the number of California students admitted to their campuses. UC Berkeley’s share seems to be in the neighborhood of 5,000 new students, 1,000 new students each year for the next 5 years.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a January 2016 report from UC indicated :
More students than ever want to attend the University of California, as applications top 200,000 for the first time from state residents, out-of-state students hoping to be admitted and students seeking transfer from community colleges.
Two-thirds of these applicants are said to be California residents. The report quotes UC President Janet Napolitano as follows:
“The increase in applications from Californians will help us reach our goal of adding 5,000 more undergraduate residents this year and 10,000 over three years.”
The report by the West County Times stated this was about 20 percent more in-state undergraduates students . No breakdown by individual campus was given. However, the Times gave a breakdown by year of the number of applications to UC Berkeley as follows:
2014 | 90,284 | |
2015 | 96,082 | |
2016 | 101,655 |
Presumably this number includes all applications, not just freshmen, since the number of freshmen applicants is said by the Chronicle to be 45,772. That story predicted a “rough” estimate that some 12,000 freshmen will be admitted to UC Berkeley under “somewhat relaxed selectivity”.
Further, the Chronicle article included a statement from Kevin Sabo, UC Berkeley senior and President of the system’s student association that the UC Student Association is worried because they fear that UC won’t provide enough housing for all the new students and that UC classes are more crowded and services less plentiful than at other top universities that are mostly private.
While the number of new students that will now be enrolled at the Berkeley campus isn’t exactly clear, just where will these people live? No one in the City has said anything. Are the new “luxury units” that are being built to house students? If so, due to the high cost in rents, they will be shoehorned, two or more to a bedroom, into units that are now being advertised as being for people like “empty nesters” and “high tech professionals” who can pay the $3,000 to $5,000 per month rent. In approving such projects, the City must consider impacts on our aging infrastructure. The Berkeley Daily Planet recently stated there are some 2,500 new units in the Berkeley pipeline! Impacts on our infrastructure are not inconsequential concerns, and as BNC has been saying, sound planning must occur now, if we are to avoid even bigger problems in the future.
At the January 20, 2016 meeting of UC Regents in San Francisco, UC President Janet Napolitano announced that a “new student housing initiative” described as adding beds for around 14,000 more students by the year 2020 would take place. The San Francisco Chronicle quoted President Napolitano as saying “Student housing is the top issue the UC Student Association leadership has raised with me” and “Not only is housing related to enrollment growth, but many of our campuses are located in some of the most expensive real estate markets in California.”
BNC is glad to finally hear these words from President Napolitano, but they heighten our concerns, not alleviate them. Apparently her remarks are the result of a UC Student Association invitation to students to send her their housing “horror stories” and “within hours” about 300 students did just that. One of those students who responded was Mr. Sabo who is quoted as saying “2020 is too long to wait.” No locations have been mentioned and the funding for this new housing is not yet in place.
While BNC agrees that 2020 is too long to wait for the campus to address this problem, our concerns go well beyond that. We can find no evidence at all that the city of Berkeley was consulted or even informed about the increase in enrollment or about the increase in housing. Does UC have any respect at all for its host cities, or even care about our particular concerns? How much can one small city have crammed into it? The city of Berkeley has a signed agreement (the Long Range Development Plan) with the UC Berkeley campus — what good is it when the agreement is not adhered to?
BNC will keep on asking these kinds of questions and letting everyone know what we find out, but it is time that all our readers (and that means YOU) start thinking about these issues and join in the conversation.
Regardless of Neighborhood Concerns, the old CIL Building, 2539 Telegraph Avenue, Gets Big Approval:
Readers may want to look back to our Tenth eNEWS from June 2014 for information regarding the development proposal for 2539 Telegraph Avenue by well-known developer, Patrick Kennedy. His plan involved demolishing the old CIL Building located there and replacing it with a six-story mixed-use residential building fronting on Telegraph and extending into Regent Street, the abutting residential neighborhood in back. The zoning on the front part of the site is C-T (Commercial, Telegraph Avenue) and on the back part of the site along Regent Street, R-3 residential. BNC is informed that this is the only lot on that particular block that involves both C-T and R-3 zoning on one lot.
The city required an Environmental Impact Report, held public meetings and received lots of negative comments mostly from the Regent Street neighborhood. Mr. Kennedy submitted a re-design of the building and the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) held a new public hearing on December 10, 2015.
The re-designed project is pretty similar to the original proposal. It is still six-stories, 70 feet tall, with 70 units, a mixture of studio to 4-bedrooms. Six of the units will be reserved for very-low income households. It is plainly stated that the building is targeted for student rentals. The commercial first floor started out to be possibly a small grocery store. It is now to be a retail space, or a quick-serve restaurant. It was first stated there would be no parking for residents of the building, but then it appears there will be nine parking spaces to be used by both the retail/restaurant users and residents, although this is not entirely clear. There will be space for 144 bicycles.
The new design changed the original design from a “T” shape to a central courtyard. In addition, the new design stepped back the massing of the part of the building that faces Regent Street. However, since the developer is providing on-site housing, he is entitled to a State mandated “density bonus.” This is calculated in a complex manner but comes down to complying with the developer’s request to:
- Exceed the allowable height limit on Telegraph Avenue to go to 70 feet, 6 stories
- Exceed the allowable height limit on Regent Street to go to 50 feet, 4 stories
- Reduce the minimum interior side yard from 4 ft to 0 in the R-3 District
- Exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage in the R-3 District
- Reduce the minimum setback on Regent Street from 15 feet to 3 feet
Neighbors again expressed their opposition at the ZAB’s December 10, 2015 hearing. Their concerns centered around:
- Intrusion of the commercial building into the residential neighborhood that has mainly 2 to 3-story building heights.
- Lack of separation between the proposed building and adjacent structures.
- Shadows cast on buildings to the north of the proposed project that will rob their courtyards of a good part of the sunlight they currently receive, and prevent them from ever having solar panels.
- Increased parking problems on Regent Street that currently requires residents to park 5 to 6 blocks away from their homes only when Cal is in session, that even though students are said not to have cars, it doesn’t mean they don’t have them.
- Elimination of a small plot of land on the Regent Street side of the lot that has been used for 20 years or more as a neighborhood park.
Most of the ZAB members had negative comments about the design of the building. (BNC Note: The architects for this project are Lowney Architects, Oakland, CA. Their website lists the much complained about Safeway on College Avenue as being among their projects.) Several ZAB members mentioned a strong desire to scale back the building on the Regent Street design while increasing its scale on the Telegraph Avenue side, but Mr. Kennedy felt that would cost too much and those proposals were rejected.
One member of ZAB then hit on the idea of taking a slice out of the middle of the building on the Regent Street side, making an indent into the part over the backdoor, leaving both sides of the indented space at the height that the neighborhood objected to. It was a spur-of-the-moment design change that the developer readily agreed to, but which BNC still finds confusing and which also leads us to believe that at least some members of the ZAB didn’t quite understand. The resulting vote was 8 (Allen, Donaldson, Hahn, Hauser, O’Keefe, Pinkston, Pinto and Williams) to approve, 0 to deny, and 1 abstaining (Tregub).
The neighbors were very disappointed in the vote and inform BNC that they have decided not to appeal the ZAB decision. It is too costly and they are too disheartened because they believe it will do no good to appeal to the Council until the composition of that body changes.
One Last Comment on the State of Planning in Berkeley:
Over the time that we have spent observing ZAB meetings, we are struck by the fact that there has been no joint meeting between ZAB, the Planning Commission and the Planning Director to discuss the vision for Berkeley’s future as outlined by our General Plan. At one time in Berkeley’s history, it was mandatory that at least one member of the Planning Commission sat on the ZAB so there could be some cross communication between the two bodies about what is being built and what is allowed by our zoning code. With the current way of appointing board and commission members, that no longer happens, and we have no idea why the Planning Director doesn’t periodically sit down with ZAB and talk about overall planning issues. We think that should happen!