As planned, the Council held the public hearing on increasing the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on April 29, 2014. The results were entirely unanticipated.
Please see BNC’s April eNEWS for background information, including examples of existing buildings on Telegraph Avenue with their FAR calculated by City staff. The FAR is obtained by dividing the building square footage by the lot square footage. An FAR is supposed to measure the mass of a building. Berkeley’s Planning Director has stated that the easiest way to understand this is to equate the FAR with the number of stories, e.g. a building with a FAR of 3.5 would be approximately 3.5 stories tall, a 5 FAR building would be about 5 stories, etc. However, nothing is very easy because Berkeley does not count certain features as floor area (e.g. enclosed parking) in calculating the FAR, so take a good look at the photos in the April eNEWS (e.g. the building at 2414 Telegraph has 6 floors with a FAR of 2.13) to get some idea of what a FAR might mean.
The staff and Planning Commission recommendation to the Council was that the FAR in the entire CT District, Bancroft to Parker should be increased to 4.5 or 5.0 with a Use Permit, except for the block on the west side of Telegraph from Blake to Parker which would keep the current maximum FAR of 3.0/3.5. This exemption was made in that one block because people on Chilton Alley and Chilton Way had complained about the potential from noise and shadows from increased commercial development on Telegraph. However, no such exemption was made for neighbors on the 2500 block on the east side of Telegraph from Blake to Parker.
BNC eNEWS readers will also remember that the east side of Telegraph from Blake to Parker is where Patrick Kennedy is proposing to construct a six-story building in the old Center for Independent Living Building at 2539 Telegraph Avenue. BNC couldn’t find the FAR on the pending application for that building, but we’ve been informed that the applicant has stated that it’s 3.97. That may or may not change under the Council’s action regarding the new FAR in this area. As reported in BNCs February issue, an early meeting to introduce this proposed building to neighbors, drew strong opposition over the height, mostly from those living on Regent Street.
BNC wrote a letter to the Council asking that the matter be sent back to the Planning Commission because the FAR concept is so hard for most people to understand and also citing problems having to do with notice to residents regarding this matter (see below). We urged that since properties south of Dwight Way on both sides of Telegraph are abutted by residential uses they should have a lower FAR than those properties north of Dwight Way which are abutted by commercial and institutional uses.
There were 11 speakers at the hearing, most of whom urged a lower FAR for properties south of Dwight Way to Parker. The Director of the Telegraph Avenue Business Improvement District, Roland Peterson, urged an FAR of 5 for the entire CT District, and developer, Ali Kashani, stated his opposition to any exemption and suggested an FAR of 4.5 throughout the District.
Three distinct themes emerged from the April 29th public hearing on this issue:
-
- Staff explained that increasing the FAR would not change existing height limitations or setback requirements in the CT District. (Height limits are 50 to 65 feet, commercial properties can be developed lot line to lot line, and where they abut residential properties, there are required setbacks, the figure most mentioned in the discussion was 10 feet.)
Increasing the FAR, however, will increase density. Increased density was cited as the purpose for increasing the FAR as per City staff, the existing FAR acted as a “limitation” on achieving the density anticipated in the adopted South Side Plan.
This increased density was also cited as the way to “revitalize” Telegraph Avenue.
- When asked by a property owner why he hadn’t received a notice of these proposed changes, Planning Director Angstadt replied that the City is required to send property owners notices regarding changes in use and zoning reclassifications, but are not required to send them notices of changes to “development standards” which is what the FAR is all about. Notice was provided by an ad in a newspaper and those who were on a “South Side interest list.”
- There was a broad Council and public consensus that the FAR for the CT District from Bancroft to Dwight Way should be increased to 5.0.
Here is what the Council did:
A motion by Council Member Capitelli, seconded by Council Member Worthington that the FAR shall not exceed 5.0 in the area north of Dwight Way in the CT District carried.
Voting Yes: | Council Members Anderson, Arreguin, Capitelli, Moore, Worthington, and Wozniak |
Voting No: | Mayor Bates and Council Member Wengraf |
Absent: | Council Member Maio |
A motion by Council Member Arreguin, seconded by Council Member Worthington that the FAR shall not exceed 4 for the area south of Dwight Way in the CT District and to revise the requirement that shadow studies “may be required” to “shall be required” for setbacks on the 4th or higher story to minimize shade impacts failed.
Voting Yes: | Council Members: Arreguin and Worthington |
Voting No: | Council Members: Capitelli and Wengraf |
Abstain: | Mayor Bates and Council Members Moore, and Wozniak |
Absent: | Council Members Anderson and Maio |
A motion by Council Member Capitelli, seconded by Mayor Bates that the FAR shall not exceed 4.5 for the area south of Dwight Way in the CT District and revise the requirement that shadow studies “may be required” to “shall be required” for setbacks on the 4th or higher story to minimize shade impacts carried.
Voting Yes: | Mayor Bates and Council Members Moore, Capitelli, Wengraf, Worthington, and Wozniak |
Voting No: | none |
Abstain: | Council Member Arreguin |
Absent: | Council Members Anderson and Maio |
The minutes state that Council Member Anderson was absent from 9:40 pm to 9:45 pm.
The second reading of the ordinance making these changes is scheduled for May 20, 2014.
Starbucks is Coming to Ashby and Telegraph No Matter What!
Neighborhoods around the southeast corner of Ashby and Telegraph were shocked to find out that the City had issued Starbucks a building permit on May 8, 2014 to open at that location despite the fact that the City Council had denied them an Administrative Use Permit on March 11th. How can this be? Here’s the full story…
- January 28, 2010: An appeal was heard by the City Council regarding a Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) decision to construct Telegraph Gardens, a building with 38 residential units over ground floor retail. The building has a FAR of 3.46 where 3.0 is allowed, 5 stories high where 4 are allowed because 6 of the units “are affordable” and 42 parking spaces — 46 were required (38 for residential and 8 for the ground floor general use and 4 spaces were waived). The City requires 1 parking space for each 500 sq. ft. for general retail. The staff report specifically states that the 8 parking spaces for retail use were all to be reserved for employees (they are located behind a locked drop down gate) and that there would be zero spaces for customers. The staff report contains the following statement:
…that the commercial spaces may be divided into as many as four smaller spaces further reduces the likelihood that uses at the site will generate substantial customer parking.
- In addition to parking, concerns were also raised about residual toxic waste on the site. The City Council dismissed the appeal without setting it for public hearing and approved the project. Voting “Yes were Mayor Bates and Council Members Anderson, Capitelli, Maio, Moore, Wengraf and Wozniak. Voting ”No“ were Council Members Arreguin and Worthington.
- March 13, 2013: Construction on the building is nearing completion. An Administrative Use Permit (AUP) is issued without a public hearing to Arktegraf, Inc to change around one-half of the building’s ground floor ”general retail“ to a 2,063 square foot ”quick serve food“ restaurant. This is a more intense use than general retail so the parking requirement changes from 1 space for each 500 sq. ft to 1 space for 300 sq. ft. The original 4 spaces reserved for employees in a locked building remain. There are 0 spaces for customers for this new use.
- June 27, 2013: Neighborhoods appeal the issuance of the AUP. They have determined that Arktegraf, Inc is actually Starbucks. Neighborhoods in opposition include Bateman, Willard, LeConte, Halcyon, CENA and BNC. Fifty speakers attended the ZAB meeting to express concerns about the change in use from a low-volume general retail use to a high volume customer quick food service use. Despite later City staff admission that there were meeting irregularities, the ZAB upholds the AUP decision on a close 5 to 4 vote.
- November 19, 2013: The Council hears an appeal of the ZAB decision regarding the AUP filed by the Bateman Neighborhood Association and supported by other neighborhoods and sets the matter for public hearing.
- March 11, 2014: City Council public hearing. Starbucks requests 3 AUPs:
- Size: 2,063 sq ft. Anything over 1500 sq ft requires an AUP
- Hours: 5:30 am to 9pm, 7 days a week. Zoning allows, by right, hours of 7:00 am to 12:00 am.
- Parking: 0 customer spaces. 7 spaces are required of which 4 will be in the building locked and reserved for employees, and 3 customer spaces will be waived.
- During the Council discussion 2 Council Members (Capitelli and Wozniak) closely question the Planning Director about how Starbucks can open without a zoning permit. The Council denies the requested AUPs on a vote of 6 Yes (Mayor Bates and Council Members Anderson, Arreguin, Capitelli, Maio and Worthington) and 3 Abstenions: (Council Members Moore, Wengraf and Wozniak).
- May 8, 2014: Building Permit approved by the City for a 1,300 square foot Starbucks with 4 parking spaces, presumably those that are reserved for employees. It has been reported that the City has stated that in the future ”no new retailer can occupy this space unless more parking is provided or a parking waiver is granted“ but it’s really unclear just what this will mean for the remaining commercial spaces and how that part of the original Starbucks application (730 sq ft) will be used. Readership speculation is invited!
BNC is informed that a core group of neighbors is exploring all the options that might be open to them. What concerns them is that Starbucks is flouting the City Council’s March 11th findings that the proposed use is a detriment to the nearby area, which will impact parking, traffic and public safety. By reducing just enough floor space, Starbucks can claim to conform to all city requirements by having 4 spaces behind a locked gate, unavailable to the public. However, neighbors point out, Starbucks is not significantly reducing the area for serving or seating customers, so it’s very much the same operation which will require the same number of sales each day to break even. It is that high intensity of use that constitutes the detriment of this proposed use and which the Council demonstrated their agreement when they voted on March 11th. The neighbors stated:
The ”new“ Starbucks application is very much an effort to circumvent that vote. And it shows, again, that planning and zoning in Berkeley is dysfunctional — permits are granted without regard to cumulative effects of previous permits in the same area.
A question that might well be asked at this point is why a business would want to locate at a site where it has been demonstrated they are not wanted. To date, no one seems to have heard a word from Starbucks.