 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
| "The Trader Joe's Project" or 1885 University Avenue and 1882 Berkeley Way |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| perspective
view from across MLK and University (earlier version - but size of project
is similar) |
||||||||||||||||||||
| IMPORTANT NOTE: Plans are the property of the architect and developer and are provided here for informational purposes only. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
July
16. 2007 I want to thank all of you who have supported our efforts to obtain a better project for our City and neighborhood. Tonight he City Council voted 5:3 (Bates, Olds, Capitelli, Wozniak, Moore for: Spring, Worthington, Anderson against: Maio recused) to approve the Trader Joe's project under the recently modified conditions of approval. We presented our case about the detriment from the project on our neighborhood and the damage the process does to Berkley's planning process. The Council heard testimony (including the inevitable parade of UC students in love with Trader Joe's and Smart Growth who have convinced themselves building five-stories in Berkeley will save the cow pastures in Solano County and eve the planet), and from us on the clear and obvious problems with traffic, parking, transition from commercial to residential, and of course the process the Council was following to achieve their goal. Over the past week, the applicant had made a number of offers to modify the transition to the immediate neighborhood by taking off or reshaping a few units here or there which would have produced a marginally better project, but we could never get them to agree to changing their basic building configuration which placed much of the detriment upon one of our most vulnerable neighbors and simply tried to cram too many project elements onto Berkeley Way. Even at the last minute between the public hearing and the Council deliberations there were conversations about whether we would accept their offer and drop our appeal. I simply decided that we needed to let the process play out in front of the Council and a judge to obtain a decision which I could live with and would not burden our neighborhood with an oversized project and our City with a precedent that would haunt every neighborhood for years to come. At the hearing the City Attorney stated that there are essentially no protections for neighbors within the Charter or Ordinances that the City Council cannot ignore, and that there are effectively no limits on the amount of additional units the Council can add to a project at its absolute discretion. The only change made by the Council was to accept Moore's motion to include a passenger pullout along MLK for the residents of Building 'A' which makes the the project more accessible and simplty better. So, what happens now? I will be meeting with our attorney to review our options and confirm our opinion that the decision is not only bad, but legally infirm. The next steps will be slower ones moving at the stately pace of the Superior and Appeals Court. We will, of course, continue to attempt to reach an accomodation with the City and applicant that preserves the livability of our neighborhood and the integrity of the City's planning process, but we are not hopeful that this will happen before the required CEQA settlement conference sometime later this year. Again thanks for your support, counsel, or simply interest in this project over the years. As we move towards litigation there will be a few lower profile tasks that can be shared with those who have the time and clerical skills to help, as well as the 'opportunity' to assist with the costs for legal representation - over the last week we have burned through the small balance I had built up with our attorney funded by the yard sale, some very generous contributions, and myself. I hope that each of you can give some consideration over the next few weeks of what you can offer to this next phase of our struggle. Fortunately I am in a position where I can guarantee that the struggle will continue, but that is not really right or proper for what is really a neighborhood and even City wide issue, so I would appreciate you giving some thought of what you can contribute to our efforts. steve Download a pdf copy of the full appeal here with attachments (8 MB file) Download a copy of the appeal only here (smaller file - 172KB) Want to sign Steve Wollmer's Appeal letter? Email him here Explanation of why the appeal is being filed, to be published in the Berkeley Daily Planet: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Editor,
Berkeley Daily Planet On Friday, February 2nd, I filed an appeal on behalf of Neighbors for a Livable Berkeley Way of the Zoning Adjustments Board’s decision to grant permits to Hudson McDonald for their massive mixed-use project at the corner of University and Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Why did we appeal an affordable housing project anchored by a popular supermarket? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| We recognize
that many of you are tired of hearing about this project and simply want
to move on, however the project as it stands is so detrimental and blatantly
illegal we believe as a neighborhood that we must pursue all legal means
to preserve the livability of our City and neighborhood. What can you do
to promptly correct the problems with this project and its approval process? Add your name on a letter (email to steve wollmer here) supporting our appeal to the Berkeley City Council requesting an open and fair hearing on the Project, and subsequent to the hearing exercise its right and duty to minimize the project’s detriment to the citizens of Berkeley and the neighbors of the project. Stephen Wollmer |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Recent
Decisions Jan 19, 2007 Update: Planning staff issued the notice of decision on the Trader Joe's project. The new findings and conditions alter the parking situation for the better. Thanks to efforts by the Neighbors for a Livable Berkeley Way, residents of this new project will not be able to obtain Residential Parking Permits, and ZAB recommended that the council institute resident-only parking on one side of the street for RPP streets that begin less than 1,000-ft from TJ's door. Unfortunately, no effort has been made to address the many other problems with this project: inadequate parking, uncontrolled mass and density, detrimental impact on the existing adjacent neighbors. Jan 11, 2007 The Zoning Adjustments Board voted to approve the project, subject to findings and conditions. Councilmember Wozniak removed his appointee Dean Metzger, who intended to vote NO, with an new appointee who vote to approve the project. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Click
here to see a more extensive timeline
of the history of this project |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Elevation of Building looking South across Berkeley Way | ||||||||||||||||||||
| general information | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Description | Two
buildings containing 148 rental apartments, of which 22 will be affordable,
with 14,390 square feet of retail space and 155 parkingspaces of underground
level parking incorporating parking lifts 123,000 square foot 5 story building, total of 116,000 is residential |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Lot size | 43,750 square feet | |||||||||||||||||||
| Application Zoning Designation | C-1/ R-3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Current Property Owner | 1950 MLK LLC | |||||||||||||||||||
| Developer | HudsonMcDonald (Chris Hudson, Project Manager) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Architect | Kirk E. Petersen and Associates | |||||||||||||||||||
| Current use of property | Small strip mall with 20,375 square feet of retail; Kragen Auto; ex-home of PetFood Express and Radio Shack. 50 parking spaces in lot. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Primary Pedestrian Entrance | Lobby off of MLK and Berkeley Way | |||||||||||||||||||
| Primary Vehicle Entrance | Residential
Parking Entrance is on University Avenue Commercial (Trader Joe's and Café) Parking Entrance is on Berkeley Way |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Setbacks | 0 setbacks on MLK and University Ave, 5-12ft setback along Berkeley Way | |||||||||||||||||||
| Number of Units | 148
Dwelling Units, 22 affordable (inclusive units) 11 are lower income, |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Gross Floor Area | 148, 249 sq ft | |||||||||||||||||||
| Density | 148 units/ acre | |||||||||||||||||||
| Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) | 3.2 General Plan Zoning Code states it should be no greater than 3.0 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Parking | 157 Parking Spaces (109 residential 48 commercial) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Open Space | Total
16,600SF Zoning Code calls for a minimum of 200 square feet of open space per unit = 29,600 SF |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Average Height & Floors | Average
Roof height is 54ft high Zoning Code specifies 40 ft, 3 floors (50ft - 4 stories with use permit) |
|||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
PlanBerkeley.org
2003, 2004 |
||||||||||||||||||||
