I will probably not be able to attend the Wednesday January 15 meeting of the Commission.

Transcription

1 Late Communications Planning Commission January 15, 2014 From: Guy Karen Benveniste Sent: Tuesday, January 14, :26 AM To: Angstadt, Eric Subject: Fwd: Walgreens at Solano & Colusa Dear Eric, I will probably not be able to attend the Wednesday January 15 meeting of the Commission. Kindly place my letter to you of December 31 (see below) in the dossier of messages and documents opposing a Walgreen on Solano. With best regards, Guy Original Message Date: Tue, 31 Dec :48: From: Guy Karen Benveniste <kgbenven@berkeley.edu> To: Angstadt, Eric <EAngstadt@ci.berkeley.ca.us>, laurie capitelli <lcapitelli@cityofberkeley.info>, mayor@cityofberkeley.info, zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us Subject: Walgreens at Solano & Colusa Dear Eric, As a retired planner and author I write to you in opposition to allowing a 10,000 square feet store of Walgreens' at Colussa and Solano in North Berkeley. I write this for three principal reasons: First, this proposal would eliminate the existing gas station at that corner. I use this gas station and there is no other gas station in the vicinity. Second, There are already four pharmacies on Solano including one right across the street from the proposed site and a CVS pharmacy in mid Solano. There are also grocery stores, office supply, card and beauty stores carrying products Walgreens would supply, thus creating excessive redundancy. There is an Andronico's super market right next to the proposed site. More importantly, the other existing suppliers are spread along the length of Solano Avenue. Walgreens would concentrate everything into this one congested corner thus creating unnecessary additional traffic and congestion. All this in front of a US post office that generates considerable foot traffic. From my point of view this proposal carries all the seeds of a planning error. Third, and last I should tell you that I have heard considerable opposition from locals to this proposed siting. I have no doubt that if you consult the

2 community, you will be hard pressed to find much if any support for another Walgreens at that site. I hope you will concur with me that this is not a desirable site for an additional Walgreens in the City of Berkeley. With kind regards, Guy Benveniste Professor Emeritus, University of California Berkeley

3 Late Communications Planning Commission January 15, 2014 To: Berkeley City Planning Commission Berkeley City Council Berkeley City Manager From: Mark Delucchi 844 Contra Costa Avenue Berkeley, CA January 14, 2014 A SUGGESTION REGARDING THE DEFINITION AND REGULATION OF DEPARTMENT STORES IN BERKELEY Summary To reinforce the intent of the Berkeley General Plan to limit the development of undesirable chain stores, formula businesses, and big-box developments, the City should add the following sentence to the definition of Department Store in Section 23F of the Berkeley Municipal Code: Any store that typically sells any merchandise in these categories is a "Department Store, including but not limited to stores commonly identified as drug stores, general merchandise stores, general retail stores, and variety stores. Background Berkeley has a long history of progressive city planning and zoning, beginning with some of the first zoning laws developed in the United States and continuing down to the present day. This has lead to Berkeley being one of the most vibrant, interesting, successful, sought after places to live and do business in the world. And one of the most unique things about Berkeley is that, unlike in many areas, it is especially desirable to live next to a commercial district. This is because Berkeley has taken special care to ensure that commercial districts are developed, in the words of the General Plan, Policy ED-3 (e), to promote communityserving commercial diversity and limit development of undesirable chain stores, formula businesses, and big-box developments without limiting the ability of local businesses to grow and expand The General Plan is especially concerned with the proper development of neighborhood commercial districts. As noted in Goal #2 of the General Plan: There are many independent locally owned businesses in Berkeley, many of them predominantly neighborhood-serving, with others serving broader regional markets The fact that chains have not come to dominate has contributed to the vitality of Berkeley s commercial areas. The Plan contains policies to support local ownership and neighborhood commercial districts. These goals and policies of the General Plan are successfully implemented in the Berkeley Zoning Code. In particular, the Zoning Code has appropriate provisions for Berkeley s Neighborhood Commercial Districts, including Solano, Elmwood, North Shattuck, and the South Area (see e.g. 23E.40 to 23E.60). These provisions include limitations on the size of

4 Department stores which modern-day chain drug stores have become and ordinances that protect the local character of the district and ensure diversity of retail that serves neighborhood needs. As discussed next, the definition and regulation of Department Stores in Berkeley reflects the explicit intent of the General Plan to limit development of undesirable chain stores, formula businesses, and big-box developments without limiting the ability of local businesses to grow and expand. To reinforce this intent and remove any possible ambiguities in the definition of Department Store, I propose below that the City add a single sentence to the definition. Current definition and regulation of a Department Store. Section 23F of the Berkeley Municipal Code defines: Department Store: A Retail Products Store selling several kinds of merchandise, which are usually grouped into separate sections, including but not limited to, apparel, housewares, household hardware, household appliances, household electronics and gifts. In the Berkeley Zoning Code, "Department stores over 3000 square feet are prohibited in Neighborhood Commercial Districts, and generally allowed without size restrictions in other areas. The following table summarizes the how Department Stores are regulated in all Commercial Districts in Berkeley: Regulation of Department Stores in the City of Berkeley Commercial Zoning Code. District Size Provision Code section Neighborhood Commercial up to 3,000 s.f. AUP 23E over 3,000 s.f. Prohibited Elmwood up to 3,000 s.f. AUP 23E over 3,000 s.f. Prohibited North Shattuck up to 3,000 s.f. AUP 23E over 3,000 s.f. Prohibited Solano up to 3,000 s.f. AUP 23E over 3,000 s.f. Prohibited South Area up to 3,000 s.f. ZC* 23E over 3,000 s.f. UP(PH) Telegraph Avenue up to 3,000 s.f. ZC 23E over 3,000 s.f. UP(PH) Downtown Mixed Use under 7,500 s.f. ZC 23E ,500 s.f. and over AUP General Commercial any ZC* 23E

5 The tailoring of the zoning provisions to the specific characteristics of each kind of district shows that City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council thought carefully about how best to implement the General Plan objectives and regulate big chain -type stores in each commercial area of the City. Given this, and noting that large modern-day drug stores such as CVS and Walgreens sell many products in all of the merchandise categories called out in the definition of Department Store, and in general have all of the undesirable characteristics of Department Stores, it seems clear that such large drug stores and other similar stores may be and ought to be regulated as Department Stores. To reinforce this, the City should add a sentence to the definition of Department Store (Section 23F of the Berkeley Municipal Code) that says explicitly that the definition applies to any store that sells the listed range of merchandise, including but not limited to stores commonly understood to be drug stores. This additional sentence might read: Any store that typically sells any merchandise in these categories is a "Department Store, including but not limited to stores commonly identified as drug stores, general merchandise stores, general retail stores, and variety stores. I have emphasized typically to obviate the possibility that a chain store that typically sells, say, household electronics will claim that it will not sell household electronics at a particular location in order to evade the regulation. I have emphasized any to avoid having to measure percentages of floor space or sales. The full definition of a Department Store then would be: Department Store: A Retail Products Store selling several kinds of merchandise, which are usually grouped into separate sections, including but not limited to, apparel, housewares, household hardware, household appliances, household electronics and gifts. Any store that typically sells any merchandise in these categories is a "Department Store, including but not limited to stores commonly identified as drug stores, general merchandise stores, general retail stores, and variety stores.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54 Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division DATE: January 15, 2014 ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Members of the Planning Commission Elizabeth Greene, Senior Planner General Plan Findings for the General Plan Amendment Regarding Floor Area Ratio Increases in the Telegraph Avenue Commercial (C-T) District Introduction As part of any General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission needs to make findings of fact supporting the amendment. These findings, found on page I-8 of the General Plan, accompany the staff report for the General Plan amendment to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the C-T District. They add support to the previously recommended Zoning Amendment to the C-T District. Changes to the General Plan would occur on pages LU-24 and 25, Avenue Commercial, and were discussed at the December 18, 2013 meeting. The proposed General Plan language changes follow the end of this report. They are a change to the Avenue Commercial description on LU-24 and to the Maximum FAR column of the table on page LU-25. The changes increase the FAR for the Telegraph Avenue Commercial (C-T) District from a maximum of 3.5 to a maximum of 5. These changes would match the C-T zoning amendment recommendations made by the Commission on December 18, Draft Findings General Plan Amendment Findings: 1. The proposed amendment is in the public interest. The General Plan amendment will allow the development standards in the C-T District to better match the building heights and setbacks approved with the Southside Plan. The site development standards in the area are currently limited by the FAR, which was not the intent of the Southside Plan. The public interest is served by allowing the housing and mixed use that was evaluated as part of the Southside Plan to be built in the C-T District.

55 2. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan. The Southside Plan was incorporated into the General Plan in One of the primary goals of the Plan is to provide high-density residential and mixed-use development along Bancroft Avenue and Telegraph Avenue. This amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and the Southside Plan because it would allow buildings with the heights and setbacks envisioned in both documents to be built. 3. The potential effects of the proposed amendment have been evaluated and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The existing height and setbacks in the C-T District already allow for buildings that have four stories and are 50 feet tall with minimal setbacks. The increased FAR could increase the density of new buildings, but this would not result in a significant change to the development assumptions considered in the Southside Plan EIR. In addition, design review process, limitations on shadowing and required setbacks from adjacent residential development further protect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, no detrimental effects are anticipated. 4. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act. The General Plan amendment is processed in accordance with Chapter of the Berkeley Municipal Code. The amendment was submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration; a public hearing was set for January 15, 2014, with at least 10 days notice given; and a notice was published in a newspaper of record according to the applicable procedures. The existing height and setbacks of the C-T District will not change as a result of the General Plan amendments. Any projects proposed in the C-T District would require Zoning Adjustment Board review and are subject to shadow reduction requirements and set backs from existing adjacent residential Districts. Therefore, the project can be considered exempt from CEQA, per Section b.3 which states: CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in questions may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Conclusion Staff requests that the Commission consider the proposed General Plan amendments in the context of these findings, and recommend the changes to the Council for consideration. Page 2 of 3

56 Land Use Section of General Plan Subject to change with FAR modifications Avenue Commercial (Pages LU 24-25) These areas of Berkeley are characterized by pedestrian-oriented commercial development and multi-family residential structures. These areas are typically located on wide, multi-lane avenues served by transit or BART. Appropriate uses for these areas include: local-serving and regional-serving commercial, residential, office, community service, and institutional. Building intensity will generally range from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 1 to an FAR of 54. Population density will generally range from 44 to 88 persons per acre. For information purposes, the compatible zoning districts for this classification are shown below with accompanying development standards. Zoning District Maximum FAR Maximum Height South Area Commercial (C-SA): ft General Commercial (C-1) 9 : ft Telegraph Avenue Commercial (C-T) : ft West Berkeley Commercial (C-W) 10 : ft Page 3 of 3