New renderings have been released for a mixed-use project proposed for development at 3120 Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley. The project proposal includes the construction of a zero net energy mixed-use building offering permanently affordable residential spaces and commercial spaces. Currently, a single-story brick building occupies the project site.
Northern California Land Trust (NCLT) is the project owner. Solomon Cordwell Buenz is responsible for the designs.
3120 Shattuck Avenue North Elevation via SCB Architects
A preliminary application was filed in December 2022, proposing a mixed-use structure offering 100% permanently affordable residential spaces, along with commercial spaces and onsite amenities. The complex will also feature landscaped open areas on the premises. The proposed building will have eight mass timber framed above-grade levels and one concrete frame basement level. The basement and ground floor will house community service oriented commercial space, a small amount of micro-retail, a residential lobby and back of house spaces required to support the functions of the building. Named Woolsey Gardens, as mentioned on the website, the complex aims to include the following:
- Community Service + Spaces: ground floor community + office spaces for existing community tenants, outdoor green terraces, and rentable micro workshop spaces for emerging local entrepreneurs
- 100% Permanently Affordable: targeting extremely low- to moderate-income households, and keeping homes affordable for the next household
- 100% Ownership: up to 65 units of cooperative housing and condominiums, making equity building accessible and prioritizing the right to return for displaced Berkeley households and the right to stay for those still here
- Sustainable / Zero Net Energy: featuring 100% renewable energy generation, emergency backup power, construction method that sequesters carbon, which collectively allow residents to save on energy bills and live in a healthier building and neighborhood
- Small Parcel, Infill Development: providing an alternative, replicable, financeable, and sustainable solution to urban renewal projects that have destroyed neighborhoods through parcel aggregation
- Community and Technical Advisors: community and technical expertise to ensure the development and community partnerships elevate equity and sustainability goals
3120 Shattuck Avenue Street View via SCB Architects
The estimated construction timeline has not been announced yet. The project site sits on a parcel bound by Prince Street, Woolsey Street, and Shattuck Avenue in the Ashby neighborhood in Berkeley.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
This is a horrible project.
It’s drastically oversized and completely out of scale with surrounding structures
It should not be approved by the city without significantly reducing the height.
As proposed, This project would be extremely detrimental to the neighborhood, in terms of parking, overcrowding, and ripping off the neighborhood property values.
This is on Shattuck avenue, one of the major north south thoroughfares, if anything the height isn’t nearly tall enough. Re ‘parking’ its one block away from Ashby Bart (and on Shattuck Ave bus lines). Re ‘overcrowding’ what are you afraid of? Seeing another human in a major urban center? Re ‘ripping off property values’ I honestly don’t know what that means, density generally increases property values, not decreases them. If you don’t want to live in an urban environment there are plenty of other places to go. Good luck.
Shattuck Avenue along that stretch (near to the Berkeley Bowl) is extremely dangerous already, and this will make it busier, more crowded, and more dangerous. This is a residential neighborhood, with no tall buildings in the area, and this will dramatically change the feel and tenor of that stretch of Shattuck, an avenue that varies widely from one area to another.
“Not tall enough” for what? To in a single building fix all the low income housing needs of the city?
This building as proposed is absolutely a problem for the neighborhood it’s in.
” Re ‘parking’ its one block away from Ashby Bart (and on Shattuck Ave bus lines).”??? so because people can get on bart or bus they never need a car ? not thinking it through. People still want cars for trips to the Park and vacations and many other reasons. No parking in a huge building in a tight neighborhood = parking disaster for the neighborhood. When a developer put in one large house (by house moving) on my block it added 20 residents and destroyed parking. what will 200 new residents do? Dreaming you can force residents not to own cars is nice but unrealistic.
You and similar Berkeley NIMBYs are the reason why my children will never be able to live in the town where they were born!
You people need yo realize that a city is a city. It will grow. New buildings will be built. We will have to stop driving if we want the planet to survive. No rent control will be able to keep the rents normal if we never allow anyone to build new homes!
Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Why do you insist on pretending like Berkeley is some kind of a suburb? If you want to live in Dublin or Antioch then move there!!!
I am all in favor of extra low income housing but let’s examine the accuracy of the claims by which the developers of these radically oversized projects are making in order to gain approval. Why are the developers so greedy? There have been many “extreme” high rises in Berkeley built before SB35 and many more to come as required now by SB35. SB35 bypasses proper tax paying neighborhood stakeholders that have been historically protected. This also helps them avoid all over site of these projects. Has Berkeley hired more inspectors to oversee all this new development. In addition is SB35 really being served: Isn’t it true that Low income owners also want lower scaled buildings with parking and enough living space that promotes neighborhood well being and a sense of community. This is overbuilt developer-trash that lines the pockets of the investors. The developers will be long gone in 15 years when the building starts to deteriorate and needs repairs. Is there sufficient funds paid in advance to upkeep these oversized neighborhood eyesores along with occupant repair expenses like elevator upkeep and paying taxes to maintain on street parking. Is it sensible to believe in the next 15 years that anyone who lives in this building will never have a car? Look at the scale next to the two story buildings along Shattuck. This building is on the south corner and will block all natural light to the northern neighbors. There isn’t even a set back from the street or the neighbor’s property line. I believe we need to have a comprehensive urban plan for Berkeley not a free for all of greedy developers who jump on board SB35. Enough building of this type now exist, even prior to SB35, to warrant an evaluation of the existing high rise low income housing and if these buildings are indeed reaching their goals and at what hidden costs to the surrounding communities and their impact on the resources and who is ultimately paying for these high rises. Thank You.
How quickly you go from advocating for extremely low income households to “tax paying neighborhood stakeholders”
Which of the two Shattuck elevations shown is the one going forward? Hopefully neither.
Not understanding the development process, the comment asks, “Why are developers so greedy?” The answer is that they are not greedy but are rather responsive to the development environment completely controlled by the city (in the case, the City of Berkeley). What can be build on any piece of land is determined by the city. What the property is worth depends on its development potential; i.e. what the city allows to be built. The choice is pay the value of the land and develop it to its full potential or pass. The property will ultimately sell to a developer who will build to that government-determined potential. You cannot buy the right to 12 stories and only build 8. This does not pencil out. The seller will not take an “8-story” price when the property’s value is based on 12 stories; again, because the city says so. In short, the city sets the height limit which sets the price of the land which dictates what must be built if the project is to be economically feasible.
Greedy. Building housing for people to live in is not “greedy.” What’s actually greedy and selfish is expecting a city to remain in Amber like it was when you first arrived from whatever Midwestern state you came from.
Senate Bill 35 says:
Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing.
The City of Berkeley now has several proposals for large highrise buldings that would drastically change the Berkeley skyline and are much larger than any of the surrounding adjacent structures. Developers of these immense projects all ask for streamlined processing based on the provisions of SB35, which allows them to avoid neigborhood input and historic city regulations, by claiming they will provide
“… at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years”.
The city of Berkeley, should do a study of these radical oversized architectural proposals, to see whether they are, in fact, providing much needed housing “to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years” as required by SB 35. The study should determine the percentage of tenants that use bycicles and public transportation instead of cars, and the average income of the tenants who are purchasing units. Until this information is obtained,
The City should not allow these projects to continue.
Why do a study if you’ve already decided that they shouldn’t continue?
Where is the on-site parking ??????
Please please please accommodate for onsite parking
This will help promote more public transit and push the region away from car dependence. Imagine how friendly Berkeley’s streets could be with more people and fewer cars.
Berkeley NIMBYs speak out. The times they are a changing.
I have to keep repeating this every time I see naysayers speaking out against these developments: The solution to homelessness is to build more housing, period. Not even about more affordable housing. Just housing! All the research is demonstrating this is the key to solving the homelessness problem. I’ve lived in Berkeley for 30 years now and FINALLY we’re just starting to build proportionate to the pace of population growth. We have a lot of catching up to do.
This actually looks like a high quality, nicely proportioned apartment building. The design is attractive and better than the majority of what I’ve seen built in recent years. I look forward to seeing it be built!
All the naysayers in these comments are really just showing why Berkeley has gotten so expensive and insular; extreme NIMBYism has stopped the city from meeting the growth inherent in the region, large projects like these are needed to meet years of backlogged demand. Berkeley had its chance at approving many smaller, more ‘appropriately scaled’, multi-unit buildings and they didn’t do anything for years, so I’m happy that projects like this one are now becoming the norm.
Sorry NIMBYs! You live in a major metro, not a museum.
This is net-zero, permanently affordable housing owned by a community land trust. This isn’t a greedy developer building an investment vehicle. It’ll have facilities for the homeless housing center. This is as good as new developments can really get and NIMBYs will still scream bloody murder over the height and how much worse it’ll make parking for them. Please log off. There are infinitely more important issues than where you’re gonna plop your prius.