Issue 23, May 2018

There’s always a lot to think about in Berkeley, but SB 827 really took a lot of people by surprise. It was defeated in committee, but every political commentator says, there is no question, it will be back.  So, what’s it all about?

SB 827 was introduced on January 3, 2018 by Senator Scott Wiener.  Its Principal Co-authors are Senator Nancy Skinner and Assembly Member Philip Y. Ting.  Senator Ben Huesco is also listed on the bill, but simply as a co-author.  With all the fuss and fury this bill raised across the entire State, the interesting thing is that newspapers usually described it as Scott Wiener’s bill, leaving off the other names.

So Who are the people involved?

Well, Scott Wiener is not entirely unknown to the Bay Area.  He was elected to the Senate in November 2016, and represents all of San Francisco, Broadmoor, Colma, Daly City and part of South San Francisco.  He’s usually referred to as a “progressive” and last year he authored SB 35.  (Check out “The Cultural Corner” in this E-News issue to read more about that bill’s effect on a proposed project on Spenger’s parking lot.)

We well know Nancy Skinner, who after serving in the Assembly, was elected to the Senate in November 2016 and represents cities on the west side of the hills along the I-880 corridor in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties.

Ben Huesco came to the Senate in 2013 and represents Imperial County and parts of San Diego.

Philip Y. Ting is an Assembly Member who represents the western side of much the same area as Senator Wiener.

 

What Did the Bill Do?

After the bill was introduced and before it was heard in any committee, it was amended in March and again in April of 2018.  Provisions in the bill’s final form are as follows:  Local governments (including charter cities like Berkeley) are required to grant a “Transit Rich Housing Bonus,” if the developer requests, and it meets an applicable affordable housing requirement, and is located within a 1/2 mile radius of a major transit stop or within a 1/4 mile radius of a stop on a “high-quality” bus corridor.

A high-quality bus corridor is defined as meeting all three criteria:  1) average service is no more than 15 minutes during the 3 peak hours between 6:00 am and 10:00 am, M-F; and, 2) average service is no more than 20 minutes during 6:00 am and 10:00 am, M-F; and 3) average service of 30 minutes during the hours of 8:00 am and 10:00 pm, Sa-Su.  The developer must also provide each tenant of the proposed transit-rich project with free monthly transit passes.

A residential building is defined as having at least 2/3s of its square footage designated for residential use.  If there are existing structures with rent-controlled units, or housing low-income households, where a transit-rich project is proposed, the developer must pay rental assistance to the existing household for up to 3 and a half years, and offer that household a new unit at their former rent amount.

Heights of such transit-rich projects that are within a 1/4 mile radius of a major transit stop shall be 55′, or within a 1/2 mile radius, 45′.  If the site has higher height limits, the height of the proposed project can be to that higher limit.

If a local government approves any ordinance which would decrease the existing residential zoning on or after the introduction of this bill, the provisions of 827 will prevail.

BNC is not exactly sure which bus lines (AC Transit or Cal) meet the bill’s criteria, but we’ve been told that this bill could probably affect such streets as Adeline, Arlington, Ashby, Claremont, College, Euclid, Hopkins, Gilman, Monterey, Sacramento, San Pablo, Shattuck, Solano, Spruce and University.  If it affected only a few of these streets, it clearly would still impact many of our single family neighborhoods. The Los Angeles Times reported that nearly 50% of that City’s single family homes would be impacted by this bill.

In the January 22, 2018 issue of Berkeleyside, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín characterized the bill as “a declaration of war against our neighborhoods,” and co-author Senator Nancy Skinner stated in that same issue, that while she believed there was not enough land in Berkeley to build the amount of housing we need if we retain single-family zoning she said, “If we don’t densify, we are not going to be able to address the need for the number of units.”

Senator Ben Allen of Santa Monica replied by stating that “Density for density’s sake doesn’t lead to affordability.  All one has to do is look at Manhattan where everyone is paying $5,000 a month to live in a closet.”

SB 827 went to its first committee hearing before the 13-member Senate Transportation Committee on April 17, 2018.  It was sponsored by  SF YIMBY Action, a coalition of pro-development ‘Yes in My Backyard’ groups, Silicone Valley CEOs, and development and real estate trade associations.  Opposed to the bill were the State Building and Trade Council of California (because prevailing wages were not specified), the Western Center on Law and Poverty, Sierra Club,  Los Angeles City Council (unanimously), San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the cities of Lafayette, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Milpitas, Beverly Hills and Marin County.  Senator Wiener stated approval was a long-shot, but he felt he had to try, given the success of SB 35.

Well, he was right about it being a long-shot.  The bill failed, but not because Senators voted against it – it was defeated mainly by the 5 senators that took the “Not Voting” option.  Four senators voted “No” (representing the San Jose, Ceres, Santa Monica and Healdsburg areas).  Four senators voted “Yes” – 2 Republicans (Gaines-El Dorado Hills and Morrell-Rancho Cucamonga) and 2 Democrats, Scott Wiener and Nancy Skinner.

Afterward, the East Bay Times, April 18, 2018, stated that Senator Wiener said he would keep working and come back with a strong proposal in 2019.

Events are already happening to carry out Mr. Wiener’s statement.  One of them occurred right here in Berkeley on May 4, 2018 at the Berkeley City Club, 2315 Durant, 11:30 am to 2 pm in the Julia Morgan Ballroom.  City Manager Dee Williams-Ridley provided welcoming remarks and introduced the keynote speaker, Senator Nancy Skinner.  Calling it a “conversation,”  it was moderated by  David Garcia, Policy Director of UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovations, and Economist for BuildZoom, Issi Romem.  Attending cost you $49.56 and reservations were made through the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce.

The announcement for the event was made through Today and Tomorrow  Berkeley Chamber of Commerce.  One announcement seen by BNC stated the event was to “promote California’s housing SB 827,” and the Chamber website billed the event as a “crash course on the Bay Area’s severe housing crisis.  That website showed photos which, while not stated, must have been taken at a previous event. One depicted Denise Pinkston, described as TMG Partners/Chair of the Bay Area Council speaking with Chamber CEO Emeritus Polly Armstrong.  Ms. Pinkston is currently the Vice Chair of Berkeley’s Zoning Adjustments Board. The other photo was of Patrick Kennedy, Panoramic Interests, a local developer.

The announcement included a link to a January 5, 2018 article on the Slate website that describes 827 as a “bill that would all but abolish the city’s famously strict land use controls–and virtually every other residential zoning restriction in California’s urban neighborhoods.”  Check it out at slate.com.

Information re BuildZoom can be found at www.crunchbase.com/organization/buildzoom.  The website states it simplifies the process of selecting a general contractor and improving the outcomes of remodeling and construction. It says BuildZoom manages remodeling and construction works that are worth over $2 billion per year.

There was no participant in this conversation who might be an opponent of SB 827, nor was there any mention of opposition to SB 827 and what it does.  BNC will try and find out what happens and let you know.

Well, to begin with there’s the Good News that the Friends of R1-A won some zoning changes and then there is the Bad News that violations of Berkeley’s Election Laws don’t seem to make any difference.  Then there is the issue about the North Berkeley BART Station.

The Good News: Part of the R1-A District is known as Westbrae.  The other part is in West Berkeley just below San Pablo Avenue.  See map below.

The R1-A zoning district allows 2 full size houses when there is at least a 4,500 ft lot.  Previously, the height limit for both houses in the District was 28 ft (2 to 3 stories) with a Administrative Use Permit (AUP) required if over 35 ft.  Since houses in Berkeley over the years been built close together, this could result in the rear house looming over the existing house with its shadows impacting both the front house and neighboring houses, especially if it was proposed that the existing house be demolished and 2 large houses would be proposed to the maximum height.

During an earlier time, neighborhoods felt these types of concerns about proposed development could be resolved through the Use Permit process put in place under the voter-approved Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance.  But times were changing.   Developer interest increased and there were changes in State law. A developer-friendly City Council and Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) emerged that didn’t consider loss of privacy and sunlight to be that important.  In response, more and more people began to request changes to the existing zoning code.

The residents who were involved in seeking to establish an appropriate, reasonable and neighborly R1-A District had a long journey.  There were 3 different Council referrals to the Planning Commission to come up with a solution, endless community meetings, ZAB meetings and at least 10 meetings of the Planning Commission, including 3 public hearings, before coming to the Council on March 27, 2018.

Throughout this long discussion, the main issue was the relationship of the rear house to the front one.  The Friends of R1-A wanted the rear building to be smaller than the front one in order to take into consideration the privacy and sunlight of neighboring houses.  Opposition came from City Staff who initially wanted no reduction in the rear building because of the housing crisis, citing the need for family sized housing, and others who wanted to proceed with specific developments in the District.  Thanks to the efforts led by Toni Mester and Ed Herzog, and the 245 people who signed their petition, the Council voted to make the following changes:

• The rear building is restricted to 2 stories with an average height of 22 ft maximum. Only the front house can be 35 ft with an AUP.  A 2 story house at 22′ is a family-sized dwelling.
• The rear yard setback is 20 ft that can be reduced to 12  ft with an AUP.
• The side setback for the rear house is now 6 ft and cannot be reduced to the former requirement of 4 ft. The side setback of the front house, however, remains at 4 ft.
• The separation between the buildings are 8 ft for 1 story, 12 ft for 2 stories, and 16 ft for 3 stories.

Section 4 of the new ordinance makes the changes effective immediately, and specifically states that it will apply to projects that have not year received a Use Permit.

The Council voted separately on the Ordinance without Section 4 and then on Section 4 as follows:

Voting Yes for the Ordinance, without Section 4:  Mayor Arreguin and Council Members:  Maio, Davila, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, and Droste.

Voting No for the Ordinance, without Section 4: Council Member Worthington

Voting Yes on Section 4:  Mayor Arreguin and Council Members:  Maio, Davila, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, and Wengraf.

Voting No on Section 4:  Council Members Droste and Worthington

The vote for the Second Reading of the Ordinance occurred on April 24, 2018 and it was exactly the same as the vote on March 27, 2018.  Changes to the R1-A Ordinance, including Section 4, went into effect 30 days thereafter.

Be aware that the standards stated above are not the standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU).  There is still a discussion about those going on.  However, we are informed that the Planning Commission voted in January to increase the size of ADUs to 850 sq feet.  More info to come on this.

The Bad News involves a violation of the Berkeley Election Reform Act (BERA) that occurred about a year and a half ago, and nothing has been done about it.

It seems that the Berkeley Rental Housing Coalition Independent Expenditure Committee (BRHCIEC) sponsored by the Berkeley Property Owners Association (BPOA) violated BERA by sending out a mailer in support of Judy Hunt and Nate Wollman for Rent Board Commissioner six days before the election and not reporting that action to the City Clerk within 24 hours of the action as is required by State and local election law. The mailer was sent out on November 2, 2016.  Notice of the mailing was required by November 2, 2016.  Notice didn’t occur until January 31, 2017.  That’s 89 days late!

The City Attorney was notified of the possible violation in January 2017 and the matter was presented to the Fair Campaign Practices Commission (FCPC) at their March 16, 2017 regular meeting.

The attorney for the BRHCIEC told the FPCP that the notification to the City Clerk was a mistake, that the employee who made the mistake was fired after the violation became known, and that his office would pay the fine.  The FPCP voted to have their staff investigate the matter further and report back at their meeting scheduled for July 20, 2017.

After receiving the staff report and hearing from the public, the FPCP voted to authorize a stipulated agreement with the BRHCIEC that set a monetary penalty of $18,900.84.  This is the maximum allowed by BERA, i.e., it equals the amount of money spent for the mailer. The vote was 5 Yes:  Commissioners Harper, Metzger, Soichet, Sridharan and Tsui.  Voting No:  Smith.  Three Commissioners absent.

After the fine amount was set, the law firm changed its mind about paying the fine. The City was notified of this by a letter to the FPCP dated September 21, 2017 requesting that a negotiating committee be appointed to consider the fine amount.  The FCPC declined this request and asked that a hearing date be set.  To date, about a year and half after the violation, no hearing has been held and the matter is still pending.  BNC is inclined to ask, what good are our regulations when they aren’t enforced?

So how did the election turn out?

Four seats on the Rent Board were open.  Elected were Soto-Vigil, Simon-Weisberg. Murphy and Tregub.  Judy Hunt came in #5 with about 14% of the vote, Nate Wollman was last with about 9% of the vote.  The City’s website incorrectly states that Judy Hunt received 20% – an error even the math-deprived BNC eye can detect!

Then there’s the pending news about the North Berkeley BART Station.

On a rainy March 16 night, motivated by an earlier posting showing a model of the North Berkeley Station with a 13-story building on it, almost 400 people gathered at Jefferson School to hear from Council Member Linda Maio, Mayor Jessie Arreguin, BART Board President Rebecca Saltzman and BART Planning Chief Val Menotti.  The posting was made by East Bay for Everyone.  In response to the flood of comments received, East Bay for Everyone said the model was simply a game for everyone to play with during their 2nd birthday party at Spats.

According to the internet, Berkeley BARF (Bay Area Renters Federation) formed in Berkeley in 2015 was reborn as East Bay for Everyone.  It became a 501c4 (not tax deductible) in August 2017 and now claims 600 members.  Largely a volunteer group it is actively seeking new members so they can hire full time staff to advocate to build more housing in the East Bay. Their website states they are “a member organization of the YIMBY Party,” the folks in San Francisco that we’ve written about before.  Victoria Fierce and Greg Magofña are Co-Executives, both of whom we’ve seen in Berkeley supporting various proposals.  They were supporters of SB 827, and are currently supporting Buffy Wicks for the upcoming Assembly District 15 elections.

At the March 16 meeting, BART planning chief Val Menotti, was quick to point out there are no specific proposals on the table.  BART has completed 11 projects, building close to 2,000 units of housing, 35% of which were affordable and that 7 were under construction.  BART’s overall goal in building station-connected housing is 35% affordable, with 20% the minimum for any one project – meaning some project will have more and others less in order to reach their 35% overall goal.

We were also told that the two BART parking lots are not currently zoned (one facing Sacramento Street, the other more deeply embedded in the neighborhood), so the first step will be to decide on the zoning.  Currently the State is considering AB 2923 which gives the BART Board of Directors (not the City) the power to set Transit Oriented Development zoning standards on BART owned parcels by August of 2019. These standards will set the lowest permissible height and density and the maximum parking allowed.  Meaning, of course, that development proposals could be above the numbers set for height and density but the parking number can be below but not above that amount. The City will have a 2-year period to respond, and if the City and BART don’t agree, BART will prevail.  Mayor Arreguin announced his opposition to both SB 827 and AB 2923 to the biggest applause of the evening.

About 75 speakers made comments at the meeting, most saying that they would welcome housing that is compatible with the existing surrounding neighborhood and bringing up concerns about the stability of the tunnel that runs under the parking lot, and questioning where the parking for BART riders who don’t live in the neighborhood would be located.  Some spoke out about the need for housing no matter what.

Well, to say the least, there is a lot more to come on this one!

Why is this subject in the Neighborhood Forum Section of the eNews?

BNC publishes articles in this Section that are written either by a neighborhood representative without editing or is summarized from material which has been submitted to us.  In this instance, BNC received an inquiry about yet another piece of State Legislation authored by our State Senator Nancy Skinner that raised concerns over and above the bill itself that we put it here with the intent of encouraging all of you to tell us what you think.

When did BNC first hear heard about SB 1227?

April 30, 2018 in an e-mail from Charlene Woodcock as follows:

I don’t much like Berkeley Considers, since it doesn’t reach most Berkeley voters and thus you get disproportionate responses from those who sit in front of a computer too much.

My quick reading of the recent Berkeley Considers email raised serious questions in my mind, although I support the University providing more student housing and certainly support efforts to terminate facilitation of internal combustion engine vehicle use (replace them with electric vehicles fueled by solar carports and roofs!).

But the Skinner bill seems to be based on the assumption that these buildings for students would be privately owned rather than publicly-owned dormitories.  If the university builds a dormitory, they don’t have to abide by city building and zoning codes, do they?  If so, then this is really another bill for developers, like Skinner & Wiener’s SB 827 was.

I would certainly hope the Berkeley City Council would not support any effort to further privatize our university.  The Administration should be lobbying the state legislature for money to build dormitories, not engaging in more public-private developments that are for-profit and will not provide enough affordable housing most students need. This is a road to privatization and corrupt practices—not what we want from our great public university system.

And before making car ownership more costly and difficult, there should be a survey and assessment of car-owning students. It could be that some of the poorest students rely on a car for family visits, e.g., to the Central Valley, where some might have family obligations and which isn’t served adequately by public transportation.

Ms. Woodcock also included in her e-mail comments posted by a resident who objected to the bill for the following reasons:

• The Berkeley Considers item is misleading. The bill does must more than increase student housing and restrict parking.
• It prevents the City from legislating against overcrowding, by requiring no limits on occupational density.
• By making full time enrollment a housing requirement, the bill allows evicting students who must enroll less than full time in the middle of their academic program.
• It rewards private landlords for creating housing that discriminates on the basis of age and family structure and pits student needs against the needs of other vulnerable communities in competition for potential development sites and resources.

Do YOU and Your Neighbors Know About “Berkeley Considers”?

It’s a city of Berkeley (COB) “online forum intended to broaden civic discourse in a constructive and civil manner.”  Go to the COB website, enter in the search box, “Berkeley Considers”, click on that and enter your e-mail address and you will be sent notices about the topics that are or will be included.  If you wish to comment on a topic, you will need to further register your name and address and set up a password.  However, when you make a comment your name is not disclosed unless you want it to be.

How was the Question Posted on Berkeley Considers?

“Should the City Council support SB 1227, introduced by Senator Nancy Skinner, which seeks to increase student housing and remove vehicular parking ratio requirements in developments consisting of full-time university/college students?”

No details about the bill were stated, nor how one might find those details.  The question is now closed, but states that on this question, it had “138 visitors, with 56 responses @3 minutes per response, that’s 2.8 hours of public comment.” And 32 of the responders said yes (57.1%), 22 said no (29.3%), 2 had other comments.

What is SB 1227 All About?

It’s an amendment to current State Density Bonus law.  It provides that a developer who agrees:  1) to build 5 or more units of housing; 2) where all units are required to be rented to students who are enrolled full-time in an accredited institution of higher-learning; and 3) will set aside 20% of all of the units for lower-income students will be entitled to a Density Bonus.

A “unit” is defined as one “rental bed” that must remain affordable for 55 years.  This Density Bonus would allow the developer to increase the total number of units in the development by 35%.  This means such a development could  be of a greater height or lot coverage than allowed, or a similar type of action that would allow a greater number of units than would be allowed under the zoning allowance for that parcel.

Lower-income is defined as a student whose income and asset level does not exceed Cal Grant A or B, as proven by an affidavit from the institution he/she is enrolled in.  Students “experiencing homelessness” will receive priority as evidenced by a homeless service provider.

Senator Nancy Skinner is listed as the sole author.  The bill was introduced in March, and is currently in the committee process.

What did the City Council Do?

On May 1, 2018, the City Council voted to support SB 1227 and to ask Senator Skinner to consider including two amendments:  1) Ask the universities/colleges to be responsible for vetting eligible students and providing a list to the City; and 2) include the units built in Berkeley to be counted in the City’s housing goals as determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

The item was introduced by Council Member Worthington and Mayor Arreguin.  At the meeting, Council Members Harrison and Droste asked to be added as co-sponsors.  The motion to approve with the requests indicated above were:

Voting Yes:	Mayor Arreguin and Council Members:  Maio, Bartlett, Wengraf, Worthington, and Droste.
Voting No:	None
Abstaining:	Council Members Davila, Hahn and Harrison

Let’s now hear from you!!!

Breaking News about student housing!

On April 27, 2018, Phil Bokovoy, President of Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation “organized to provide education and advocacy to improve the quality of life, protect the environment and implement best planning practices in Berkeley,” filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court against UC President Janet Napolitano, UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ, and 20 un-identified others.  The lawsuit asks the court to compel the Berkeley campus to conduct a CEQA review to assess the impacts of the increase in enrollment and how those impacts might be mitigated.

First, a little history:  In January 2017, the Housing Master Plan Task Force, chaired by then-to-be Chancellor Carol Christ, issued a report identifying 9 sites they felt were appropriate for new student housing.  The goal was to provide university housing for 2 years of entering freshmen, 1 year for entering transfers, 1 year for graduate students, plus up to 3 years for new untenured ladder faculty.  The “best candidate sites” were identified as the parking garage and tennis courts at Channing Way and Ellsworth (200-400 beds in residence halls) and the College of Natural Resources’ Oxford Tract (1,000 – 3,000 in traditional and apartment style residence halls).  Some other sites on the list were: the Upper Hearst Parking Garage (75-100 market rate units plus replacement parking), the People’s Park 2.8 acre site (200-350 undergraduates with a food service facility), Albany Village (150-200 apartments) and part of the Richmond Field Station (units to be determined).  That list caused a lot of controversy, particularly around the People’s Park and Oxford Tract sites. Then the controversy grew when CAL announced it would accept 1,000 new students, each year, for the next five years.

What’s CEQA?  The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires an environmental impact review for some plans and some projects.  CEQA has come under fire in recent years as being an impediment to building new housing.  In response, some developers and/or cities label their projects as “infill” or claim that their development plans do not involve any sensitive issues or land areas in the hopes they will be allowed to skip the CEQA process altogether.

In filing the lawsuit, Mr. Bokovoy stated that Chancellor Christ did not respond substantively to their prior requests to discuss the problems that neighborhoods

were experiencing so they had little other choice except to sue.  The problems mentioned are that the extra students displace low-income renters, increase homelessness, cause traffic congestion and place additional burdens on police, fire and emergency services for calls that involve trash, noise, and excessive drinking all of which have been well documented over the years.

In a highly controversial move in 2005, then-Mayor Tom Bates, (with the City Council following afterward), gave approval to Cal’s 2020 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) without first disclosing its provisions to the public.  In that Plan, Cal said it would add 1,650 students and 2,500 beds for students.  However, on October 30, 2017, in response to a request from the city of Berkeley, Cal indicated there were actually 8,302 students, a five-fold increase compared to the 1,650 projected in the LRDP and the campus had built fewer than 1,000 beds.

Other problems include whether Cal has sufficient classroom, lecture hall, lab facilities, etc. to accommodate all these new students.  BNC doesn’t have a clue how this lawsuit will work out, but it’s a pretty bold step!

Another Complicating Factor:  Cal is taking several hundred beds off the private housing market through the use of master leases that include parts of or entire buildings.  It’s unclear how the units that are included in these master leases are counted toward the different levels of income goals set by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for our City.  Since the State Legislature is moving toward setting fines for cities that don’t meet these housing goals which range from very-low to luxury, we’d like to know how the Cal student and faculty housing will be counted. Will the units reserved for students be based on  their own income, or that of their parents and who will make these calculations?  We don’t know, but this is important because if they aren’t counted at all because a State entity owns the lease, it could mean increasing future density in our City that is already one of the most dense cities in the State.

We’ll try and find out and let you know about what happens. In the meantime, check out the Neighborhood Forum Section in this eNews issue for some further information.

On another note involving the campus, the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) voted on April 5 to landmark the Campanile Way Corridor and specifically stated that the westward view toward the Golden Gate was a significant contributing factor to the historic Campanile Way.

At the LPC hearing, speaker after speaker spoke in favor of landmarking the view.  Only one speaker spoke in opposition. She identified herself as the attorney for the proposed high rise construction at 2190 Shattuck (the former JC Penny’s store on the corner of Shattuck and Allston Way). She stated that Steve Finacom, Chair of the LPC had a conflict of interest since he authored the Campanile Way Corridor application, even though he absented himself from voting on the landmark question.  She also repeatedly mispronounced the word “Campanile.”  Proponents of 2190 Shattuck say that views shouldn’t be considered as landmarks in any event, and that this building won’t have an effect on the view from the campus anyway.  Opponents say the building will privatize and block the westerly view from the base of the Campanile which is the only place on the ground where thousands come every year that is free and open to the public 24 7, that this view is the very symbol of both the City and the Campus, and that Campanile Way with its view has been an integral part of the Master Plan for the Berkeley campus since its very beginning.

Plans for 2190 Shattuck are before the Design Review Commission and will have to come for public hearing before the Zoning Adjustments Commission.  Given the controversy, it’s pretty certain it will be appealed to the City Council.  BNC will have plenty more to say about it as it goes forward, so we’ll just stop commenting for the time being.

Flash:  The May 2, 2018, San Francisco Chronicle reported that Chancellor Christ is planning to announce that the campus will build 700 units of student housing plus 100 more to house the homeless on People’s Park. Mayor Arreguin is said to be backing this proposal and that Council Member Worthington who represents that area isn’t opposed to it, although he is focused on larger sites for housing, such as Edwards Field and University and Oxford where more units could be built.