The Berkeley City Council unanimously approved the construction of an eight-story housing development on the corner of Virginia Street and Shattuck Avenue at its regular meeting Tuesday. A majority of public commenters expressed concerns about the project’s affordability, government transparency, gentrification, health and safety.
The housing project first received development rights under state law in 2023, later receiving unanimous approval from the city’s Zoning Adjustments Board in September 2025. However, residents living in proximity to the housing development appealed the permit approval to the city later that same month, citing documentation and procedural concerns.
“Does this project justify its scale and impact?” said one public commenter. “The developer is asking for maximum density but they are offering minimum affordability.”
The project includes nine very-low-income units and nine moderate-income units, meaning it qualifies for the state housing density bonus. This allows the developer to build 55 additional units, for a total of 110 units.
The developer and owner of Bay Area housing firm Panoramic Interests, Patrick Kennedy, claimed that the building would house non-students and older Berkeley residents looking to downsize, in turn freeing up houses in Berkeley for new families while keeping older residents in Berkeley.
A representative of community members from the area of North Shattuck alleged the applicant failed todocument and justify the need for “waivers and concessions” used to increase the height, size and bulk of the building.
“Waivers and concessions” refers to a key aspect of California’s Density Bonus Law. The law, which is meant to incentivize developers to construct affordable and senior housing, includes up to a 50% increase in project densities depending on the amount of affordable housing provided.
The representative further alleged that the city failed to review “waivers and concessions” for the project and did not follow environmental review procedures.
“You’re justifying what basically is a monstrosity in the middle of our neighborhood,” said another public commenter.
The appellants alleged “outdated cleanup and measurement protocols, dating back over 30 years,” requesting a “full-scale environmental review.”
The site is at the location of the former Virginia Cleaners,which, according to the council agenda, an environmental site assessment in 1999 found had a prior contamination issue. However, a California Environmental Quality Act analysis found that the project would not have “environmental effects that have not already been analyzed.”
Kennedy’s lawyer, Mark Loper, claimed that the appellants did not present measurable proof that the development would harm nearby residents’ health and safety. City staff stated that the project meets environmental review thresholds.
Additionally, according to Singeh Saliki, senior planner for the City of Berkeley, the developer requested an exemption from the Public Art on Private Development fee, which requires all proposed private development projects larger than 10,000 square feet or with five or more housing units to include an on-site publicly accessible artwork or otherwise pay an in-lieu fee.
District 4 Councilmember Igor Tregub suggested that Kennedy make a donation to the public arts fund.
“Seeing (the City Council) stand up to developers on even the smallest token feels like a miracle at this point,” said another public commenter, referring to Tregub’s recommendation.
District 5 Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe emphasized that under California law, the council does not have the option of legally upholding the appeal.
Multiple council members stated their support for increased and affordable housing in Berkeley, ending with a unanimous vote to deny the appeal and approve the zoning adjustments.
“(The complaints) make sense. They are real complaints,” O’Keefe said. “But having been on the Zoning Board for more than 10 years, the same complaints are raised for almost every single large housing project: construction impact, shadows, traffic, parking. These things are brought up every single time. If we denied projects based on these factors, we would have built almost no housing in the last 15 years.”