From: Bereket, Immanuel Sent: Tuesday, October 24, :04 AM To: Hi Mr. Navix,

Transcription

1 Jacob, Melinda SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS ROUND 1 Page 1 of 7 Subject: FW: 1717 University Ave. From: Bereket, Immanuel Sent: Tuesday, October 24, :04 AM To: 'navidiraj@aol.com' <navidiraj@aol.com> Subject: RE: 1717 University Ave. Hi Mr. Navix, The Parking and Driveway Design Guidelines are guidelines, not requirements, and development projects are reviewed by the City s Traffic Engineer for adequacy on a case by case basis, because every project site and proposed design is unique. The proposed site plan has been reviewed and approved by the City s Traffic Engineer. Responses to specific questions follow. 1. Driveway width/length: The driveway is an existing legal nonconforming driveway that has historically provided access to parking on the site. Although the 100 long driveway is less than the 12 minimum desired width for driveways, the width is considered acceptable to serve the 18 parking spaces. 10 width is adequate to serve one direction of traffic. The project includes signs requiring exiting drivers to yield to entering vehicles, so that entering vehicles do not back up onto McGee Avenue. 2. Garage parking space adjacent to northern property line: The northerly parking space would be closer than 3 feet to the north property line, but the setback is adequate to allow for adequate turn movements from the drive aisle to/from parking spaces within the garage. A retaining wall and fence with landscaping is proposed along the northern property line. 3. Parking lift system: The parking lift system is a puzzle lift system, in which cars move horizontally and vertically. The triple lift system with 6 bays accommodates a total of 17 vehicles, requiring one open space. The lifts do not accommodate large or oversized vehicles. Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions. Regards, Manny Immanuel Bereket Associate Planner City of Berkeley Land Use Planning Division 1947 Center Street Berkeley, CA (510) ibereket@cityofberkeley.info As a cost saving measure the City of Berkeley is closed the 2nd Friday of every month. Additional closures may occur. For the latest City Closures and Holidays please check the City of Berkeley Homepage at From: navidiraj@aol.com [mailto:navidiraj@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 19, :26 PM To: Bereket, Immanuel <IBereket@cityofberkeley.info> Subject: 1717 University Ave. 1

2 Page 2 of 7 Hello Mr Immanuel Bereket Planning Deportment Berkeley The attached documents are my architect's feedback about 1717 Univ. project. Please review the documents and let me have your answers by or let me visit you in your office. Regards, Iraj Navid 2

3 Jacob, Melinda SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS ROUND 1 Page 3 of 7 To: Subject: Bereket, Immanuel RE: 1717 University Ave.- Follow Up Questions From: Matthew Fialho [mailto:matthew.fialho@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, :12 PM To: bobcampbell7@earthlink.net Cc: Bereket, Immanuel <IBereket@cityofberkeley.info>; Steven Ross <Steven.Ross@lsa.net>; John Sloan <framework12@att.net>; Judi Stampss <stampsja@yahoo.com>; Robert Pack Browning <robertpackbrowning@gmail.com>; Michael O'Leary <mj_oleary@comcast.net>; Nelia White <neliawhite@gmail.com>; Evan Jones <evan@assemblydesign.com> Subject: RE: 1717 University Ave. Follow Up Questions Hi Bob, Please see below in GREEN. We re diligently trying to accommodate your concerns and work around guidelines. If the below responses are not adequate we can meet possibly Thursday in the late afternoon? Best, Matt 1. The North Boundary Fence. It appears from the latest submission (at page A4.7) that a 6 foot fence from the grade of my yard at 1710 Berkeley Way(the retaining wall) is proposed. We discussed, and I recall you agreed, the fence would be no higher than the existing picket fence now atop the retaining wall and would not block light. You may recall I asked that such fence be designed to deter people from climbing over it. I use the area at the South end of my yard -- an area which exceeds the square footage of the proposed project's rooftop garden -- to grow fruit and vegetables because it gets direct sunlight. Privacy and noise concerns can be mitigated in other ways as discussed below. The City had asked that we mitigate the noise from the parking lifts and as such we were directed to make the height at 6 feet. We can customize the perforations to be more open and allow more sunlight to penetrate the fence. We can suggest lowering the fence another foot but then we run into the noise mitigation effort. We have to defer to the city here. 2. The North Facing Balconies. The latest submission (at page A2.3) does not state the height of the balcony railings or detail the material to be used to provide sound / visual privacy mitigation. I ask that the railings be six feet high and be designed ensure sound and visual privacy. This is a very, very quiet neighborhood. In the past, I have been able to clearly hear speaking voice conversations of roofers several houses away. Elevating the voices amplifies them because there is nothing to absorb that sound as occurs with ground-level conversations. When sitting on my front porch I am able to clearly he bells of the Campanelli as the sound waves bounce off the house across the street. My house is one story. I can imagine a cell phone voice projecting not only into my back yard, but also over my home, bothering my neighbors and bouncing back to bother me on my front porch. Judi Stamps has has offered evidence that cell phone voices from the apartment building on University Avenue behind her home on the 1600 block on Berkeley Way are an annoying nuisance. I 1

4 Page 4 of 7 note there are no balconies or outdoor spaces facing Berkeley Way, on the AHA building to the East of your proposed project, which are visible to the Berkeley way neighborhood. Also as we have discussed, the benefit of an outdoor space is predominately to look at the sky, not down on the neighbors. I understand your concerns. However, the neighborhood is already an urban environment and there will be some noise from all the surrounding uses. To address your concern we have utilized the perforated corrugated metal panels to provide privacy. The railing heights proposed are typical and approximately 43 or just under 4 feet tall from the floor level. (The corrugated material will be 60% solid providing a sound barrier better than an open window. Note : Six foot balcony railings on a balcony narrower than that would not be a feasible for a project and would severely limit natural light and livability). To go any higher would not be architecturally pleasing to the exterior of the building or the occupant of the space. Furthermore, I believe we d have a Fire Life Safety and potential ADA issues with higher railings. To mitigate your ongoing concerns about noise we can only ask the occupants to be courteous of the neighbors. As you mentioned, the occupants of the AHA Building are already providing above street level noise through the open windows despite not having balconies. I don t think the typical renter profile (balcony occupant) we are targeting is going to be a problematic noise concern for you. I wish I had a better answer here. 3. Parking Garage. The latest submission (at page A4.5) seems to show the parking structure is planned to be fully enclosed. Please clarify. The parking will be enclosed above the gates with wood slats providing acoustical remediation. We have reached out to the park lift manufacturer and may be able to provide solid doors since the standard is a mesh grating. 4. Height of Elevator Shaft. The latest submission (at page A2.1) reflects the proposed height of the elevator shaft at the rear (North Side) of the top floor of the proposed project to be 65.6 ft., essentially adding a 6th floor to the proposed project. What design alternatives are available to eliminate this tower? The Americans with Disabilities act (ADA) requires that all spaces be made accessible to anyone so the elevator is required (the tower is part of the required mechanical clearances). We have situated this over 100 feet back from the rear property line. 5. Restaurant Exhaust fan. What is the location and design of the restaurant exhaust fan? A restaurant exhaust fan was constructed on the AHA building to the East of the proposed project after the building construction was completed. It was very noisy, and the muffler system that ensued atop the roof is ugly and bulky and sits as a testament to bad planning. We have positioned the exhaust fan stack six feet above the deck and 87 feet from the property line. We can address specifications regarding the exhaust fan at the final design review, when we will have the opportunity to provide more specific details which have been integrated into a construction set. Noise and ugliness will be one of our priorities when we get to the final design. Note: the fan exhaust system is fully enclosed in a shaft of the building envelope. 6. Exterior Artwork. The neighbors are concerned that the exterior metal sheeting could acte as a chimney for flames in the event of a building fire, as happened recently at the Londen apartment complex. Has this been addressed with the Berkeley Fire Department? 2

5 Page 5 of 7 The stainless steel product can be found at you may also search other projects globally with the architectural metals. The fireproofing at the actual building facade is of one hour fully sprinklered construction and the facade itself is non-combustible. There is no possibility for fire transmission through this space. Furthermore, residential buildings have no fireproofing or sprinklered and would pose a far greater threat of spreading from building to building. Not to mention and dry vegetation. The City of Berkeley Fire Department will consult during the final construction drawing stage. The London Fire is a completely different matter but I understand your concern. Please note that we are designing a modern building with many fire life safety features required to prevent catastrophe to both the occupants and the surrounding buildings. 3

6 Jacob, Melinda SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS ROUND 1 Page 6 of 7 Subject: FW: 1717 University Ave. From: bobcampbell7@earthlink.net [mailto:bobcampbell7@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, October 23, :56 PM To: Matthew Fialho <matthew.fialho@gmail.com> Cc: Bereket, Immanuel <IBereket@cityofberkeley.info>; Steven Ross <Steven.Ross@lsa.net>; John Sloan <framework12@att.net>; Judi Stampss <stampsja@yahoo.com>; Robert Pack Browning <robertpackbrowning@gmail.com>; Michael O'Leary <mj_oleary@comcast.net>; Nelia White <neliawhite@gmail.com> Subject: 1717 University Ave. Matt -- I have a few comments about the proposed project which I hope can be resolved before the ZAB Meeting this Thursday October 26th. We can meet in person if you believe that would be helpful. 1. The North Boundary Fence. It appears from the latest submission (at page A4.7) that a 6 foot fence from the grade of my yard at 1710 Berkeley Way(the retaining wall) is proposed. We discussed, and I recall you agreed, the fence would be no higher than the existing picket fence now atop the retaining wall and would not block light. You may recall I asked that such fence be designed to deter people from climbing over it. I use the area at the South end of my yard -- an area which exceeds the square footage of the proposed project's rooftop garden -- to grow fruit and vegetables because it gets direct sunlight. Privacy and noise concerns can be mitigated in other ways as discussed below. 2. The North Facing Balconies. The latest submission (at page A2.3) does not state the height of the balcony railings or detail the material to be used to provide sound / visual privacy mitigation. I ask that the railings be six feet high and be designed ensure sound and visual privacy. This is a very, very quiet neighborhood. In the past, I have been able to clearly hear speaking voice conversations of roofers several houses away. Elevating the voices amplifies them because there is nothing to absorb that sound as occurs with ground-level conversations. When sitting on my front porch I am able to clearly he bells of the Campanelli as the sound waves bounce off the house across the street. My house is one story. I can imagine a cell phone voice projecting not only into my back yard, but also over my home, bothering my neighbors and bouncing back to bother me on my front porch. Judi Stamps has has offered evidence that cell phone voices from the apartment building on University Avenue behind her home on the 1600 block on Berkeley Way are an annoying nuisance. I note there are no balconies or outdoor spaces facing Berkeley Way, on the AHA building to the East of your proposed project, which are visible to the Berkeley way neighborhood. Also as we have discussed, the benefit of an outdoor space is predominately to look at the sky, not down on the neighbors. 3. Parking Garage. The latest submission (at page A4.5) seems to show the parking structure is planned to be fully enclosed. Please clarify. 4. Height of Elevator Shaft. The latest submission (at page A2.1) reflects the proposed height of the elevator shaft at the rear (North Side) of the top floor of the proposed project to be 65.6 ft., essentially adding a 6th floor to the proposed project. What design alternatives are available to eliminate this tower? 5. Restaurant Exhaust fan. What is the location and design of the restaurant exhaust fan? A 1

7 Page 7 of 7 restaurant exhaust fan was constructed on the AHA building to the East of the proposed project after the building construction was completed. It was very noisy, and the muffler system that ensued atop the roof is ugly and bulky and sits as a testament to bad planning. 6. Exterior Artwork. The neighbors are concerned that the exterior metal sheeting could acte as a chimney for flames in the event of a building fire, as happened recently at the Londen apartment complex. Has this been addressed with the Berkeley Fire Department? Thank you in advance for yor time and attention to this matter. Regards, Bob Campbell 1710 Berkeley Way 2