Note: In this Section, BNC publishes articles that are written either by a neighborhood representative without editing or is summarized from material that has been submitted to us. We will tell you when an article has been written by a representative or when it has been summarized.
We start off this post with comments from BNC:
So Long, It’s Been Good To Know Yuh1
On December 11, 2014, the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) held a public hearing on the David Trachtenberg (architect)-Read Investments (Morgan Read is the grandson of the original Grocery Outlet owner) proposal to demolish the 41,471 square foot Grocery Outlet (GO) that has served residents for the past 23 years and build a new 174,612 square foot mixed use building at 2001 Fourth Street. The original Grocery Outlet building was constructed in 1950 by Bendix/Westinghouse and used to manufacture brakes for locomotives.
At 5 stories, this new building will be located next to and rise about 3-4 stories above the University Avenue overpass. There will be 8,450 square feet of retail/commercial on the first floor that faces Fourth Street in an effort to add to the blossoming upscale Fourth Street Shopping District across University Avenue. Also, 152 units of housing topped by a roof garden featuring an outdoor theater, eating, dog walking and recreational area will rise above the commercial space. The building will be divided into what will appear to be 4 separate buildings connected by “circulation bridges,” arranged around a central courtyard. The first residential floor will have some dwelling units, a community room, and a fitness center with “podium open space” that includes a children’s play area. The height limit in this area is 50 feet, but this project is entitled by State law to an extra story as a density bonus, so the actual height will be 58 feet plus more for mechanicals. The project will provide 12 affordable housing units, scattered throughout the project and a $400,000 payment into the City’s Housing Trust Fund. There will be 193 parking spaces, 9 motorcycle and 82 bicycle spaces to serve both the retail/commercial and residential uses. The building earns 82 points on the Green Building Score which is relatively low.
At the hearing, there was much discussion concerning the Grocery Outlet (GO). The applicants testified that the GO was “underperforming,” that it had been sold in 2009 and would have left the site in 2015 regardless of this proposal2. Further, they stated Read Investments had contacted “large format” commercial and specifically named T.J. Maxx, Trader Joe’s, CVS, Walgreens, Sprouts and Whole Foods but none were interested in the space because of concerns about vehicle access, limited parking, and a limited marketing area now that West Berkeley Bowl, Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s had opened. The applicants stated they would make a “serious effort” to include a “neighborhood-serving” market in the commercial space. While not stated specifically, it seems apparent that IF a grocery store is found, it will not be the sole occupant of the 8,450 sq. ft retail/commercial that is to be developed along Fourth Street.
1 Words and Music by Woody Guthrie
2 See additional comments regarding this particular issue at the end of this article
Residents refuted that the GO was “underperforming” by saying that in their experience GO was always crowded — photos of the site in the staff report back this up by showing a full GO parking lot. They also mentioned other thriving GO stores in the East Bay, and pointed out the continuing relationship between these stores and the Read Investment portfolio. Speakers stressed the importance of the GO store to residents throughout the City and the surrounding poor to middle class neighborhood because of its reasonable prices. The neighborhood was described by speakers as being the only place in Berkeley where people could still afford to live.
Speakers also testified that with all the residential and other development in the area, people not wanting to pay extra for their parking in these new developments were parking in the neighborhood. There is no Residential Permit Parking in the area because the City’s program ends at Sacramento Street, and as BNC recalls extending RPP beyond the current area would require further environmental impact studies. So, while general statements were made by ZAB members around the subjects of parking, the lack of transit services in the area, vehicular circulation, bus benches, etc. they made no specific recommendations about these concerns.
Rents in the new apartments received little discussion with the exception that some “loft” apartments were described as either a studio or a 1-bedroom (this was unclear as was the number of these apartments in the building). Mr. Trachtenberg stated the concept was borrowed from The Central (aka The Argeggio) Building in Downtown Berkeley in which the bedroom borrows natural light through a glass partition from another room (in this case the kitchen). As a 1-bedroom unit it will probably fetch a monthly rent in excess of $2,000.
In the ZAB discussion a clear consensus emerged on the following points:
- Praise for the design and the “generous” amount of open space provided, including the children’s play area.
- Concern about the loss of a moderately-priced grocery store for the neighborhood, but that the City could not mandate that a certain type of grocery store or specific business would remain at that location.
- That the applicant had complied with all City requirements.
- That the project provided too many parking spaces and the applicant should look at car sharing possibilities.
A motion to approve the project was made by Board Member Allen, seconded by Williams.
Voting Yes: Allen, Dominguez, Hahn, O’Keefe, Pinkston, Pinto and Williams
Voting No: Tregub
Not participating in the meeting due to owning nearby property: Donaldson
ZAB Member Tregub explained that his “No” vote was because he could not in good conscience make the specific finding that is required by the City’s Demolition Ordinance that demolishing the GO building would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood.
After the public hearing, BNC received a copy of a letter dated January 5, 2015 addressed to the Mayor and City Council by Curtis Manning of the Fifth-University-Dwight Neighborhood Association. Mr. Manning’s letter, without editing, is reprinted below:
Yet another gargantuan apartment complex at the foot of University, with shops underneath, has been okayed by the very compliant Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB). Five stories, no set-back, and shortsightedly maximized for profit. The Planning Department has orchestrated things so that neighbors had little opportunity to confront the effects of this project on the neighborhood, and when they did show up to complain, they got two minutes before the mike. I am writing about issues of concern to our neighborhood that have not been addressed because of the “streamlined” process that the City now follows — cumulative impacts, and procedural issues with the way the permit is being handled, and significant issues with the proposal of Trachtenberg and Read.
When Grocery Outlet came to Fourth St. in 1992, the neighbors were concerned over its effects. At the time, Berkeley was such that we were afforded the right to mediation. We met with Mr. Peter Read, and after mitigations were agreed upon, he sent a note saying, “Your vote of confidence is much appreciated by all of us at Canned Foods. We will strive to be outstanding neighbors in the months and years to come”. We can say that Mr. Read kept his promise. However, such is not the case with the current Mr. Read, or his architect, Mr. Trachtenberg, or the Planning Department. We have been gamed.
Our neighborhood includes the Sisterna Historic District, whose significant structures are along Addison St. and 5th and 6th St., less than half a block from the proposed development. The Sisterna house was built in the year that Oceanview incorporated with Berkeley. This historic district represents a remnant of another time, which the City once voted to protect, and now disregards. But the City of Berkeley now works steadfastly to minimize the opportunities for neighborhoods to protect themselves from ill-considered development and maintain their quality of life. The City has the responsibility under its charter to pay more than formal attention to the concerns of the neighborhood. Below I list our concerns, to be followed by recommendations for their mitigation.
- Procedurally, if the City is sincere about neighborhood preservation, they would not set both Design Review Committee meetings before any input from the neighbors occurred, as the project is then essentially a fait accompli by the time the community gets to criticize it. Thus, the propriety of removing a much needed grocery store and adding 152 more units of apartments, was not intended to be an issue that could be meaningfully opposed. We noticed that in the December 15, 2014 West County Times, a similar situation in Walnut Creek was described, in which neighbors had to sue Safeway because “the city illegally committed to the project before the public could offer its opinions and that the environmental report failed to address serious project impacts…” The neighbors were forced to settle for $125,000 damages. So, they ultimately lost, but made a point — that it is wrong to engineer the permit process to avoid public scrutiny — a point that the Berkeley City Council and the ZAB ought to respect.
- I was notified of the ZAB hearing on December 1, only three days before written comments were due at the City Clerk’s, if we wished them to be included in the packet for the December 11 meeting. Clearly this is insufficient time if honest feedback was sought. The City ought to encourage written comments; neighbors know the “ground truth” that commissioners are often ignorant of, as we will demonstrate below.
- Two minutes time per speaker at a ZAB meeting is not enough to make our points clear. The developer is given adequate time, why cannot the neighbors? It seems like a railroad to us. It is an insult, in fact to neighborhood preservation and good planning.
- Traffic mitigation — the agreement with Grocery Outlet (GO) in 1992 for a barrier on 5th St. was the result of a mediated agreement with GO, that southward egress would not be allowed from the 5th St. side to protect the neighborhood. The new plan has added 193 parking spaces, all accessed through 5th St., and constitutes a significant impact on our neighborhood.
- The loss of Grocery Outlet has a significant impact on our neighbors, and has the effect of driving out or inconveniencing poor and middle-class folks for whom this store is an important resource. With GO’s removal, all the new apartment dwellers will have to use cars to go to the store. Replacing GO with apartments also involves the loss of a good number of union jobs.
- The cumulative effects of parking in our neighborhood by tenants of newly constructed apartments and Amtrak users has been barely tolerable to neighbors. Tenants do not want to pay $125 a month for parking, so they use our neighborhood instead, and no parking is provided for users of Amtrak. The City has failed to address these issues in their planning. Meanwhile, the Preferential Parking Program is not applicable below Sacramento St. At times, residents must park more than a block away from their homes.
- The new plans remove the AC-transit bench currently at 4th and University, which is inset into the existing building, out of the public right of way (the sidewalk is very narrow there).
- In the new proposal, the neighborhood will suffer the loss of adequate (4 ft.) setback along 4th and 5th Streets. The maximization of the building’s footprint may satisfy the property owners, but it is bad policy for our neighborhood and recreates a “canyon” effect. They cannot make a vital commercial center without generous, convivial pedestrian space, as with Mr. Abrams’ development.
These complaints cover the City’s disregard for the quality of life in our neighborhood, the cumulative effects of previous bad planning, and particular complaints about the Read and Trachtenberg proposal for 2001 Fourth Street, Grocery Outlet. Below we propose a set of mitigations that could address some of the cumulative and specific impacts of the project in question.
- The City should not allow the final Design Review hearings before neighbors have a right to comment on the plan. Neighbors should be fully notified for Design Review hearings, and notifications for Design Review and ZAB should be mailed more than two weeks before the hearing. We request that the Council instruct the City Manager to institute these procedures.
- The City should institute a study of the affected area at the foot of University to determine whether a Preferential Parking program should be instituted for the neighborhoods. Renters will have to park in their expensive parking spaces, as it is done in East Berkeley. As a further mitigation, the parking permits for neighbors should be paid for by apartment owners, because it is their massive building projects that have forced us to request and demand this mitigation.
- Require that the AC-Transit bench at the northern edge of 4th and University be retained, with its setback off the public right-of-way (or better, impose a 4 ft. setback of the building).
- Require 4 ft setbacks along the public right-of-way on 4th and 5th St., to help mitigate the uncomfortable “canyon” effect the two Trachtenberg buildings and 4th and U will create.
- Require either that ingress and egress to the building be from 4th St. rather than 5th St., or that 5th St., be made a one-way north street between Addison and University.
- Consider instituting monthly street sweeping west of 6th St; this area is no longer industrial, but residential. Sycamore leaves continue to clog the storm drains in every substantial rain storm at 5th St. and Addison, inundating the sidewalk.
- Shuttle busses to BART and other popular destinations is a necessary mitigation for the loss of Grocery Outlet and the huge increase in population density that would lessen the need for, and impact of automobiles. This was promised, but it has not appeared.
This extensive list points to the need for a mediation between neighborhood and developer interests. Too long has the neighborhood perspective been sidelined. Too long has the City acted to exclude our concerns about issues that we have every right to dispute.
We request that the City prevail upon Mr. Trachtenberg and Mr. Read to make changes to their plans that address these concerns. We also request that the City respect the rights of neighborhoods, who, after all, provide the bulk of the tax revenues for Berkeley.
Sincerely,
Curtis Manning
of the Fifth-University-Dwight NA
In a later e-mail, Mr. Manning provided this additional statement, also posted without editing:
Morgan Read, managing partner of Read Investments, testified that they and Grocery Outlet were two separate companies, implying that there was no connection, saying that Grocery Outlet was going to shut down anyway. But when Grocery Outlet was first “sold” in 2009, the senior staff went with it. Furthermore, MacGregor Read, co-CEO of Grocery Outlet, characterized it as a merger. MacGregor Read is of the same Read family that owns Read Investments, are financially backing the project. So it is likely that Morgan Read’s statement that Grocery Outlet was going to close anyway in 2015 was as much of a distortion of truth as his statement to the effect that Read Investments and Grocery Outlet had nothing to do with each other. They are just getting rid of Grocery Outlet because they can make more money with an apartment complex, even if it makes the neighborhood less tenable. Why else would Morgan Read twist the truth before the ZAB? And why else would Trachtenberg call his project “an infill development”? They probably felt that if the truth was known, there might have been resistance in the ZAB. It is, in reality, just another real-estate speculation project.
Curt
BNC’s Response
It is certainly no secret that BNC is concerned about the development that is occurring in Berkeley. We have always maintained that growth is inevitable and that what we seek is reasonable, managed growth that considers its surrounding neighborhoods. We don’t even mind that developers make a profit. We want attractive design, thriving businesses, environmentally sound and socially responsible projects that can exist side by side in a livable neighborhood. Finding solutions won’t come easily and it will require real planning.
BNC has heard by the grapevine that the developers are holding some informal meetings with the neighbors over the grocery store issue. BNC is extremely pleased to hear this might be happening and we are hoping for some good news on that score. However, the hard work that needs to be done by our City cries out to be done. So, it looks like it will be up to the neighborhoods to be the squeaky wheel that will get attention. Every neighborhood needs to join the discussion of these issues in our General Meetings and help formulate specific solutions. If we love our City, it is not acceptable to just complain.
- First, we must convince our local government that they must come face-to-face with the need for comprehensive area planning for not only West Berkeley but for all our neighborhoods. Berkeley needs to establish a direction, not mindlessly continue the piecemeal, case-by-case approach now being used. This includes the pressing issues of improving our transportation and traffic systems as well as the fact that cities all over this country are struggling with the issue of “gentrification” and providing housing that will support all socio-economic households. It’s high time that our City face these problems squarely, and start talking about solutions.
- While we are doing that, BNC requests that actions be taken now:
- The ZAB should hold a preliminary meeting on projects over a certain size to flush out what the issues are before the project goes to Design Review. When a proposed project is scheduled to be discussed at Design Review, widespread notice, like that given to notices about Use Permit Public Hearings should be given to all affected parties. These notices should be given in a timely fashion — at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting. The Design Review Committee should be restructured to include a member of the Planning Commission.
- BNC should send a letter to the City Council requesting that they undertake the necessary studies to extend Residential Permit Parking areas throughout the entire City. Because of the increased development that is occurring in West Berkeley, this study should be phased with the area west of Sacramento Street being accomplished first. The City should also start the necessary nexus studies that would charge all developers a fee that would be allocated to the operation of a Berkeley shuttle bus system that would serve all of the City’s commercial districts. Such a shuttle system should be undertaken in conjunction with all private and public transports that are moving people daily in our City and should include funding solar-powered recharging stations for electric shuttles.
- BNC should send a letter encouraging Mr. Trachtenberg and Mr. Read to meet or continue to meet with neighbors to find out if they can voluntarily come to some agreement regarding inclusion of a grocery store and retention of the bus bench on the University Avenue side of the proposed project. Also, recommending that these discussions include the possibility of a larger, moderately-priced grocery store being constructed within the neighborhood but at a different location.