Will the Fog Cutter with a new twist go over at the Spats Redux?
In March, Berkeley residents learned that Nathan George and Mark Rhoades purchasers, under the name Berkeley Soiree Life, are planning an April soft opening of the long-closed Spats located at 1974 Shattuck Avenue. This will be followed in May with a Hollywood style opening complete with searchlights. Right now they are busy cleaning the old place up while promising to retain the “funky decor, taxidermy, jungle room murals and iconic signs” while providing “more of a sit down feeling” to the old bar. Food will be served until 2 am. The Tonic Nightlife Group which operates seven bars in San Francisco will manage the new place. The owners are also planning on providing a return of the fog cutter drink (see BNC Issue 12, On the Neighborhood Food Prowl for the recipe!). Only this time it will be served in a “punch bowl filled with dry ice, rum fruit punch and straws for communal enjoyment” — germs included. Guess we will find out how that goes over!
The California Supreme Court Speaks on 2707 Rose, but did they get it wrong?
Readers will recall that the City Council approved a Use Permit to build a 10,000 square foot single family home (it includes a 10-car garage) at the top of Rose Street. Neighbors objected on the basis that this building should not have been approved without the completion of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) because it was too large to be constructed on a steep (50-degree) slope and that it potentially endangers the LaLoma Viaduct which is adjacent to it. (Not too many Berkeley residents recognize how LaLoma is constructed, with Rose Steps leading down the LaLoma roadway to connect with the top of Rose Street.) The City maintained that the project was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it was in-fill development and fell under the exemption for small facilities and structures, such as single-family homes.
The neighborhood sued, but the Alameda Superior Court agreed with the City. The neighborhood appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court decision, ruling that an EIR was required. (See BNC Issue 13, Neighborhood Forum for a timeline.) The California Supreme Court agreed to rehear the case. On March 2, 2015, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals regarding the EIR for further proceedings “consistent with this opinion” to reverse (translation: the Supreme Court didn’t agree with the reasons given by the Appeals Court regarding their EIR decision).
On March 18, 2015, the neighborhood and others filed a petition with the California Supreme Court for a re-hearing. Their petition essentially stated that the Supreme Court was plowing new ground regarding CEQA — ground that no other court has previously touched. The petition contends that the process the California Supreme Court was suggesting will have a far-reaching adverse importance for considering and mitigating harmful environmental consequences. Furthermore, it was contrary to over 40 years of statutory and regulatory authority, all relevant legislative history and rule-making and all prior decisions of this Court.
The petition further raised issues regarding a difference of opinion between the geotechnical consultant for the property owners and the geotechnical consultant for the neighborhood. One issue raised was whether one sheet in the set of plans for the project was a part of the “approved plans.” The City contends that the neighborhood’s geotechnical consultant based his opinion on this sheet and that it was not in the plans that were approved. The neighborhood’s petition contends their consultant based his conclusion on the set of approved plans, and it provided evidence that the sheet was among the plans that were approved by the City Council at the time the geotechnical engineer made his evaluation.
You can read the whole petition at going to www.2707rose.org and then clicking on the link to the petition. The Supreme Court has until May 29 to respond to the petition for rehearing.
BNC is concerned about this issue not only because of the proposed project itself but because of the potential for significantly weakening California’s EIR process. We will watch this carefully and keep you informed. In the meantime, we feel that a few pictures might be helpful in understand this issue and its impacts. We, therefore, are providing this series of recent photos to aid in that understanding.
The following photos are courtesy of Lawrence B. Karp, Consulting Engineer
Upcoming Issues that Every Neighborhood Needs to Watch…
-
-
Does the City really think Sunshine is important?
The Zoning Code provides that new projects can be denied if they are “detrimental” to the neighborhood and that “loss of sunlight” be considered in making this decision. Yet, ZAB approved a project that would substantially eliminate the sunlight of two houses which are unusually positioned on an adjacent property. (See BNC Issue 13, Neighborhood News Round and About for details.) On March 24, 2015, the Council will consider the appeal by the neighbors of the Zoning Adjustment Board’s decision regarding 2135 Roosevelt Ave. This is an important case in that it well might serve as a precedent for future zoning decisions, and neighborhoods will find out whether the City regards loss of sunshine important enough to be a detriment.
- What “Significant Community Benefits” will developers of high rise buildings in the Downtown be required to provide in exchange for the added economic increase they have been given by the added height?Berkeley requires that developers of buildings over 75 feet tall in the Downtown provide “significant benefits” to the community. There have been a number of discussions at the Zoning Adjustments Board on this subject. Most of these discussions have centered around the 194 foot, 18-story building that is proposed to be constructed at 2211 Harold Way. (See BNC Issue 14, Neighborhood News Round and About for details regarding the building and some of the benefits that were being proposed by the developer and members of the public.) The issue of what should be a significant community benefit never reached a definitive resolution by the ZAB and in March the Board referred the subject back to the City Council. The Mayor has been widely quoted as stating that he regarded this as the “Council’s job.” This matter will be placed on the Council’s agenda on April 7th. One question that BNC would like to have discussed right away is whether “significant benefits” will be a list from which the City can choose so that whatever is chosen will correspond to the size and scope of the proposed building.BNC maintains that the issue of community benefits is extremely important to everyone in that they must be tied to the community (not the residents of the proposed building) and must reflect the enormous economic gift to the developer in the form of the increased height, while at the same time allowing for reasonable growth. Not a very easy task! For your opportunity to weigh in on what action should be taken on this issue, attend the meeting or write to the Council. You can read the City Staff reports on the City’s website.
- Under the Mayor’s proposal to allow Accessory Dwelling Units as-of-right with no zoning review and without the need to provide extra parking, what will be the density impact and difference between Zoning Districts?On March 24, 2015, the Mayor submitted his proposal to the Council regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that he announced to the Berkeley Property Owners Association last Christmas. At that time, he indicated that Council Members Capitelli and Maio were working with him on this matter. The item before the Council on March 24, however, comes from him alone and it’s written in a way that indicates he anticipates Council approval which, by the way, he got. The item requests that the City Manager incorporate certain requirements allowing ADUs to single family homes as a matter “of right” (meaning no zoning review or notice to neighbors) and return to the Council with an ordinance to implement. The requirements would allow up to 750 square foot dwelling units with 4 foot minimum side and rear setbacks from the property line, with no setbacks if there is an existing building, with no parking required if the ADU is with a quarter of a mile of a BART Station and “tandem parking” in an existing driveway allowed in the rest of the City. The property owner is required to live in either the main building or the ADU at the time of construction. There is no minimum lot size required, but no more than 40% of the lot may be covered. The only exemptions are Panoramic Hill and on streets that do not meet minimum fire access. The reason given for this proposal is to meet Climate Action Goals.BNC has a great many questions about what this all means. However, we will wait to see the proposed ordinance and make our comments then. There was considerable discussion of the details at the March 24, 2015 Council meeting. Most interesting was the statement by Council Member Wengraf who said this will turn R-1 zoning into R-2. No one on the Council disputed that statement. There was no mention of density whether there will be any differential between existing Zoning Districts as indicated in our General Plan. There is already an unsettled, growing dispute in West Berkeley as to the differences between R-1A and R-2. Also, no indication was given that property owners have been notified and given the opportunity to comment on this pending zoning change.
We will have a great deal to say in our next eNEWS regarding this issue.
- Displaced by the Parker Place Development at 2598 and 2600 Shattuck, but is the former Any Mountain retail store at 2777 Shattuck an appropriate new home?After approvals, appeals and lawsuits, the City gave final approval in October 2014 to modify the permit approving construction of Parker Place, a mixture of business uses, 155 residential units and 302 parking spaces. (see BNC Issue 13, Neighborhood News Round and About for details.) Construction has started and now it turns out that the Honda Auto Dealership (which is among the top 10 of the City’s revenue generators) has not been able to find a place in which to relocate. Any Mountain, a retail store at 2777 Shattuck “lost” its lease, so the City Council voted on March 17, 2015 to defer $84,000 to $112,000 in permit fees that the Honda Dealership would have to pay to move into that building, and that once they have moved in and the exact amount of the fees is known, the Permit Center would be paid from the General Fund Reserve. The problem is that no one thought to say anything to the residential neighborhood that abuts the back of Any Mountain. This may or may not be something that can be overcome, but one of the issues is that the Honda Dealership seems to be planning on locating their auto service center in the rear of Any Mountain. The last BNC heard was that a meeting between Honda and the neighborhood was being put together. This issue is important particularly for neighborhoods that abut commercial properties as the transition zone between commercial and residential zoning is a major planning concept that has so far been ignored by the City.
-
All of the above issues will be reported to you in upcoming BNC eNEWS issues. You can be assured there will be plenty to discuss.
BNC also invites submissions of any kind — news, suggestions, comments, additions and rebuttals from any one to this section. Please send to bnc50@berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com.