regular meeting of the planning commission this … · 7/28/2010 · public comment: comments on...

Planning Commission

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981-7474 Fax: 510.981.7490 E-mail: [email protected]

AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

This meeting is held in a wheelchair accessible location.

July 28, 2010 North Berkeley Senior Center 7:00 PM 1901 Hearst Avenue

See “MEETING PROCEDURES” below.

All written materials identified on this agenda are available on the Planning Commission webpage: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=13072

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

1. Roll Call

2. Order of Agenda: The Commission may rearrange the agenda or place additional agendized items on the Consent Calendar.

3. Public Comment: Comments on subjects not included on the agenda. Speakers may comment on agenda items when the Commission hears those items. See “Public Testimony Guidelines” below.

4. Planning Staff Report: In addition to the items below, additional matters may be reported at the meeting.

5. Chairperson’s Report: Report by Planning Commission Chair.

6. Committee Reports: Reports by Commission committees or liaisons. In addition to the items below, additional matters may be reported at the meeting.

7. Approval of Minutes: Draft minutes of July 14th (attached).

8. Future Agenda Items and Other Planning-Related Events (attached).

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS See “Consent Calendar Guidelines” below. None.

AGENDA ITEMS: All Matters are for discussion and possible action. Public Hearing items require hearing prior to Commission action.

9. Discussion/Action: West Berkeley Transportation Services Fee Nexus Study Recommendation: Consider the nexus study prepared for the West Berkeley

Transportation Services Fee and provide comments. Written Materials: Attached. Web Information: None. Continued From: None.

of 3

10. Discussion/Action: West Berkeley Project – Set Hearing on Zoning Amendments Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the

proposed zoning amendments, provide feedback, and set the matter for a public hearing.

Written Materials: TO BE DELIVERED. Web Information: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=23512 Continued From: None.

ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS: In compliance with Brown Act regulations, no action may be taken on these items. However, discussion may occur at this meeting upon Commissioner request.

Information Reports:

None.

Communications Zelda Bronstein: article “Made in Brooklyn”

http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20100616/made-in-brooklyn Fran Segal: North Shattuck design idea, 7/20/10 John F. Davies: Email regarding West Berkeley, 7/14/10 Steve Wollmer: Letter regarding June 29, 2010 Affordable Housing Workshop, 7/8/10

Late Communications handed out at a previous meeting (copies available from the Berkeley Planning Department office, 981-7410). Staff handout – West Berkeley Project: Definitions of R&D and Protected Spaces

Modifications, received 7/14/10 Staff handout – West Berkeley Project: Zoning Amendments Guide, received 7/14/10 Commissioner Poschman – copy of “Sample Definitions for R&D, Manufacturing, and

Office Uses” from April 14, 2010 staff report, received 7/14/10 ADJOURNMENT Meeting Procedures Public Testimony Guidelines

Speakers are customarily allotted up to three minutes each. The Commission Chair may limit the number of speakers and the length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all items on the Agenda. To speak during Public Comment or during a Public Hearing, please line up behind the microphone. Customarily speakers are asked to address agenda items when the items are before the Commission rather than during the general public comment period. Speakers are encouraged to submit comments in writing. See “Procedures for correspondence to the Commissioners” below.

Consent Calendar Guidelines

The Consent Calendar allows the Commission to take action with no discussion on projects to which no one objects. The Commission may place items on the Consent Calendar if no one present wishes to testify on an item. Anyone present who wishes to speak on an item should submit a speaker card prior to the start of the meeting, or raise his or her hand and advise the

of 3

Chairperson, and the item will be pulled from the consent calendar for public comment and discussion prior to action. Procedures for correspondence to the Commissioners:

To distribute correspondence to Commissioners prior to the meeting date -- submit comments by 12:00 noon, eight (8) days before the meeting (Tuesday). Please provide 15 copies of any correspondence that is more than ten (10) pages.

Any correspondence received after this deadline will be given to Commissioners on the meeting date just prior to the meeting.

Staff will not deliver to Commissioners any additional written (or email) materials received after 12:00 noon on the day of the meeting.

Members of the public may submit written comments themselves early in the meeting. To distribute correspondence at the meeting, please provide 15 copies and submit to the Planning Commission Secretary just before or at the beginning of the meeting.

Written comments should be directed to the Planning Commission Secretary at the Land Use Planning Division (Attn: Planning Commission Secretary).

Communications Are Public Records: Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information. Written material may be viewed in advance of the meeting at the Planning and Development Department, 2118 Milvia Street, First Floor, during working hours or at the Main Branch Library, Shattuck/Kittredge Streets, during regular library hours at the Reference Desk. Accommodations Provided Upon Request. To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981-6346(V) or 981-7075 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date. Note: If you object to a project or to any City action or procedure relating to the project application, any lawsuit which you may later file may be limited to those issues raised by you or someone else in the public hearing on the project, or in written communication delivered at or prior to the public hearing. The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge related to these applications is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitations period is specified by any other provision. Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred.

Please refrain from wearing scented products to public meetings.

This page left intentionally blank

DRAFT MINUTES OF REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 14, 2010

- 1 -

Time: The meeting was called to order by Chair Stoloff at 7:10 p.m. 1

Location: North Berkeley Senior Center. 2

ROLL CALL 3

Commissioners Present: Dacey, Eisen, Gurley, Novosel, Pollack, Poschman, 4 Samuels, Stoloff. 5

Commissioners Absent: Clarke (excused). 6

Staff Present: Amoroso, Harrison, Sanderson. 7

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - No speakers. 8

PLANNING STAFF REPORT – Staff reported that the North Shattuck Safeway 9 project was revised and no longer will need a General Plan Amendment; staff 10 identified the late materials provided to the Commission. 11

COMMITTEE REPORTS – Commissioner Novosel reported on the SOSIP 12 committee’s priorities for streetscape improvements in the downtown. The 13 Commission discussed the need to identify funding sources. 14

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 15

Motion to approve the draft minutes of the June 23, 2010 meeting with no 16 revisions (GP/JN). Ayes: Dacey, Gurley, Novosel, Pollack, Poschman, Samuels. 17 Noes: None. Abstain: Eisen, Stoloff. Absent: Clarke. 18

AGENDA ITEMS 19

Item 9: Draft 2009 Berkeley Housing Element Revisions 20

Motion/Second/Carried to set a public hearing for September 15 (GP/JS). Ayes: 21 Dacey, Eisen, Gurley, Novosel, Pollack, Poschman, Samuels, Stoloff. Noes: 22 None. Abstain: None. Absent: Clarke. 23

Item 10: West Berkeley Project – R&D Definitions; Protected Spaces 24

Staff presented the research and development (R&D) definitions and permit 25 thresholds as recommended in the staff report distributed at the meeting. 26

Public Comment: 10 speakers. 27

No formal action taken; Commissioners provided feedback on each of the five 28 points in the staff report. 29

DRAFT MINUTES OF REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 14, 2010

- 2 -

ADJOURNMENT 30

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm 31

Commissioners in attendance: 8 32 Members of the public in attendance: 30 33 Public Speakers: 10 34 Length of the meeting: 2 hours 50 minutes 35

Item 8 July 28, 2010

Planning Commission Future Agenda Items The following schedule provides staff’s best estimate of agenda items for future meetings. Please consult the Planning Commission website for meeting agendas: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=13072.

September 15 West Berkeley Project discussion Public Hearing: Revised Draft 2009 Berkeley Housing Element

September 29 Peerless Greens Preview (tentative) West Berkeley Project: MUP & re-use zoning language - open public hearing October 13 West Berkeley Project: MUP & re-use zoning language - close public hearing

Other Pending Projects (date TBD) Nexus Study for Proposed West Berkeley Transportation Services Fee – comments

to Council Southside Plan DAP implementing zoning code Zoning Amendments related to site posting and appeal fees Telegraph Avenue extended hours and beer and wine with AUP (CC referral) Large home family daycares (CC referral)

2118 Milvia Street 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7400 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7470 E-mail: [email protected] New Website: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/DepartmentHome.aspx?id=3460

Planning Department Redevelopment July 28, 2010 To: Planning Commission

From: Wendy Cosin, Deputy Planning Director Amber Evans, Economic Development Coordinator

Subject: WB Transportation Services Fee (TSF) Overview Recommendation The Planning Commission is asked to review the Nexus Study for a proposed West Berkeley Transportation Services Fee. At this session, staff will introduce the fee in a public presentation. The Planning Commission is expected to discuss and take possible action to make recommendations regarding the WB TSF to the City Council at a session in September as part of the WB Project process. In particular, the Planning Commission may wish to discuss credits or discounts for preferred land uses, TDM measures, and prior use as well as application of the fee as mitigation measures of the WB Project EIR. Introduction The West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan Report (WBCMP Report) identified capital projects that would improve traffic and circulation issues in the area bordered by San Pablo Avenue and East Frontage Road. As part of the Project Area Committee (PAC) review of the WBCMP Report, the PAC suggested consideration of an impact fee to provide increased funding for circulation improvements identified in the Report. The City Council discussed the potential for a transportation services fee specific to West Berkeley on April 28, 2009 in a Joint Session with the Berkeley Redevelopment Agency. In general, transportation impact fees are based on the cost of an identified set of improvements and an analysis of the “fair share” portion of the costs associated with impacts from new development (the “nexus”). A Draft Nexus Study has been completed for public review. The purpose of this report is to provide the Transportation Commission and PAC with information about the assumptions and preliminary conclusions from the Draft Nexus Study and to get feedback on policy issues. A nexus study identifies the maximum fee that can be justified. If the City Council adopts a TSF, the fee can be adjusted to reflect local priorities and concerns. Any collected fees must be spent on improvements contained within the approved capital program within five years.

Item 9 Planning Commission July 28, 2010

Proposed WB Transportation Services Fee Nexus Study Planning Commission ‐ July 28, 2010

2

Background Both the WBCMP Report and the West Berkeley Project Draft EIR identified the need for a fee to be collected to support improvements that will mitigate additional traffic associated with new development in West Berkeley. The General Plan also calls for the development of such a fee and the West Berkeley Plan calls for specific transportation improvements which the proposed fee would support. Any new fee must be consistent with California Government Code §66000, which requires that fees imposed on development be proportional to the impact of the development. As indicated above, this is commonly referred to as the “nexus” and the formal analysis which establishes that a fee is proportional to the impact is called a “nexus study.” A nexus study must account for the exclusion of both regional growth and existing traffic, both of which create deficiencies in the circulation network that are not the responsibility of new development. The Draft WB TSF Nexus Study is Attachment A of this Report. Key information within the nexus study includes:

The cost of capital improvements, including identification of the amount that is likely to be funded by other agencies or grants, which can be subtracted from the total to be collected by a local TSF.

The amount of new development and its associated traffic. A comparison of new development’s square footage and traffic with future

cumulative development/traffic, to determine the proportion of the capital costs that may be required from new development.

Cost of Improvements: The cost of a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) and capital improvements to provide freeway interchanges, railroad grade separation, and local road, bike, pedestrian and transit improvements in West Berkeley is $86.2 M1. These improvements (Attachment A of the Nexus Study) will be included in an ordinance if the fee is adopted, and are the only improvements that can be funded by the impact fee. However, as described in more detail below, the maximum total amount to be collected by a TSF is $6.17 M, with the majority to be used to support local serving, rather than regional serving, improvements. Total TSF Amount: Key assumptions on the percentage of costs that could reasonably be attributed to a TSF or other “local funding” (such as revenue from sales tax, gas tax etc…) is proposed as follows2:

Table 1

1 As compared to the WBCMP Report, these cost estimates have been increased by 2.3% to reflect inflation, significant cost increase for the Gilman Grade Separation, and development of a TDM cost estimate. 2 External funding assumptions are based on City staff's estimate of likelihood and amount of external funding from regional, State and federal sources. Although regional improvements may receive up to 88.5% of funding, local costs for design and environmental expenses are often required upfront, reducing the total support to an estimated 80%. Prior grant success rates and range of available funding sources justify the assumption that 20% of bike and transit projects will be externally funded. All estimates incorporate City transportation staff’s familiarity with the range, type and trends among available sources.



3

Sources of Funding for Capital and Program Improvements Improvement Outside Funding Local Funding

Regional Improvements: Highway interchanges and approaches (including grade separation at rail)

80% 20%

Local road and pedestrian improvements -0- 100% Local rail safety, bike, and transit improvements and Transportation Demand Management (TDM Program)

20% 80%

Applying these assumptions to the specific improvements to be included in the TSF capital improvement program, $34.5M of the $86.2M (40%) will not receive outside funding and will be needed from local sources. The next step is a determination of the percentage of the cost that can reasonably be attributed to new development. In summary, the Draft Nexus Study assumes that new development is responsible for 23%3 of the cost of local improvements and 8%4 of the cost of regional improvements. The resulting calculations follow showing that $6.17 million is the funding needed to serve new development (note: figures do not add up due to rounding). While regional improvements make up $59 M (68%) of the total capital improvement program, the cost of these regional improvements that can be attributed to new local development is just $944,000 or 15% of new development’s share of the capital program.

Table 2 Calculation of Nexus Amount for TSF Fee

Project Type Cost Estimate (2010)

Local Funding Required

Share of Cost: Existing Development

Share of Cost: New Development

Regional Improvements: Highway Interchanges and Approaches (including grade separation at rail)

$59 M

20% = $11.8 M

92% = $10.9 M

8% = $944,000

Local Rail Safety Improvements $10.7 M 80% = $8.6 M

77% = $6.6 M

23% = $1.98 M

Local Roadway Improvements $3.1 M 100% = $3.1 M

77% = $2.4 M

23% = $720,000

Local Bicycle Improvements $5.6 M 80% = $4.5 M

77% = $3.5 M

23% = $1.04 M

Local Pedestrian Improvements $1.6 M 100% = $1.6 M

77% = $1.2 M

23% = $360,000

Local Transit Improvements $5.1 M 80% = 77% = 23% =

3 For local improvements, the cost attributable to new WB development is based on new square footage taken as a percent of total projected developed square footage in West Berkeley in 2030. 4 For regional improvements, the share attributable to new WB development is based on an analysis of the West Berkeley Transportation Model's Traffix program. Specifically, 11 intersections were analyzed to determine the proportion of 2030 traffic that can be attributed to existing West Berkeley development and existing and future regional traffic, and therefore cannot be included in the fee.



4

Project Type Cost Estimate (2010)

Local Funding Required

Share of Cost: Existing Development

Share of Cost: New Development

$ 4.1 M $3.2 M $940,000 TDM $1.0 M 80% =

$ 800,000 77% = $616,000

23% = $184,000

TOTAL $86.2 M $34.5 M $28.4 M $6.17 M Allocation of TSF Cost: As indicated above, once the cost for improvements and the reasonable distribution of the costs have been determined, a method is needed to allocate the cost to new development. Typically, transportation impact fees are allocated based on the number of trips that a new use generates, which is then translated into a cost per square foot. The Draft EIR for the West Berkeley Project (DEIR) assumes that residential and non-residential cumulative new development will be 3.8 M square feet5. The development intensity assumed is expected to generate 2,2466 new PM peak hour trips. With 2,246 net pm peak trips projected, a maximum per-trip cost of $2,748 can be justified by the nexus calculation ($6.17 M / 2,446 trips = $2,748/trip). Given that trip generation rates vary by use, the cost per square foot is applied based on trip generation factors established in the WBCMP Report and utilized in the WB DEIR methods. Based on the assumptions described above, the average rate, on square foot basis, would be $1.83/square foot ($6.2 M / 3.4 M sq ft7). Using standard ITE traffic generation rates revised for West Berkeley’s actual conditions (such as density, transit, biking conditions, etc.) a per trip rate of $2,748 would result in maximum justified fees ranging from $1.10/ sq ft (warehouse) to $17.04/sq ft (high turnover restaurant). The maximum justified fees by use are summarized in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Maximum Justified Fee by Use

Residential – Corridor $632 per dwelling unit

Residential – Non-Corridor $1,209 per dwelling unit

Office (General office) $3.90 per sq ft

Specialty Retail $5.11 per sq ft

Retail (New Car Sales) $6.05* per sq ft

Restaurant (High turnover) $17.04* per sq ft

Restaurant (Low turnover) $14.84* per sq ft

General Light Industry $2.64 per sq ft

Warehouse $1.10 per sq ft

5 Excludes 1.7M square feet of existing development assumed to be removed or rehabilitated, and reused at same traffic intensity level. 6 WB Project Draft EIR Appendix H - Trip Generation. ITE Trip rates were adjusted to City-specific rates. In addition, the 2,490 trips identified in the DEIR were reduced by 10% to eliminate projects which cannot be charged a TSF because they have received a building permit or are covered by a development agreement. 7 This development is net of 470,000 square feet of development, having received a building permit or under a development agreement (12% of projected sq ft).



5

Heavy industrial $1.37 per sq ft

R&D $2.83 per sq ft * These maximum justified fees may be lowered as discussed below. Fee Burden: The potential TSF was analyzed in the context of Berkeley’s overall fee requirements. Berkeley fees for residential development are generally lower than for comparable flat land East Bay communities, but the local commercial and industrial development fees are higher. The residential differential is partially because Berkeley’s two existing impact fees (Affordable Housing and Childcare) do not apply to residential uses. While fees for commercial and industrial uses are higher than local comparable communities, so are rents, compensating developers for the higher initial investment. Additionally Berkeley has lower parking requirements potentially resulting in lower development costs. The maximum justifiable fee level appears supportable in terms of the existing market position of Berkeley as compared to competitive locations and the existing fee burden in Berkeley relative to other communities.

Discussion If adopted, the proposed fee would be applicable to all new development in Berkeley on or west of San Pablo Avenue and on or east of the Eastshore Frontage Road, and would be applied to all new developed manufacturing, commercial and residential uses within the C-W, M, MM, MU-R, and MU-LI zoned lands. The ordinance approving the TSF will provide detail on its implementation, including credits and/or fee reductions which may be provided as discussed below. Site changes which trigger neither a use permit nor a building permit would not be subject to the fee. Issues that may need further discussion before an ordinance is drafted include:

Preferred Uses - The City Council can reduce fees for specific “preferred uses” for a variety of reasons, including consideration of the market impact of the fee. Such fee reductions cannot be passed to other uses and thus a reduction would result in less TSF revenue, which would have to be made up from other sources.

o Restaurants - The Office of Economic Development’s preliminary comments regarding the proposed fee are that the justifiable fee for restaurants is relatively high and could stymie efforts to bring restaurants to San Pablo Avenue. Restaurants have been one of the few bright lights in what has been a dismal retail economy in Berkeley over the past two or three years. Therefore, Staff’s preliminary recommendation is to reduce the TSF for all restaurants from the maximum justifiable fee of $17.04 to $5.11 (the fee charged Specialty Retail).

o Car Dealerships - The City has worked very hard to retain and expand car dealerships in Berkeley, which provide significant sales tax revenue. One of the areas targeted for such dealerships is West Berkeley. Staff’s preliminary recommendation is to exempt car dealerships from the TSF.



6

Credits for Existing Use/Vacancies – The policies and practices regarding

applying credits for existing uses, including sites with vacancies, will need to be addressed. There are significant vacancies within existing structures. The calculations for expected revenue assume that 1.7 M sq ft of non-residential space will be re-used with no increase in intensity and, therefore, no fee would be collected. The projections also assume revenue from 3.4 M square feet, which will involve some situations where existing space is re-used more intensively (new uses). Other municipalities have encountered problems with implementation when applying complex calculations for prior use credits. Issues include:

o How long has a site been vacant and how is this documented? o How does the new use (and resulting traffic) differ from the previous use? o How is intensification captured/documented?

Staff’s preliminary recommendation is to develop a method to apply credits when a new use is proposed in a vacant space based on the date of the traffic count used in the DEIR traffic analysis. For example, if a site has been vacant since the DEIR traffic count was taken, then no credit for the prior use would be provided because the new development would be creating traffic not considered in the DEIR. Intensification charges would be based on any differential between the trip generation rates of one use and that of the previous use. No credit (or refund) would be given for sites where a proposed use would have a lesser trip generation rates.

Credits for TDM Trip Reductions – The Nexus Study incorporates the existing level of mode split in West Berkeley. The DEIR reflects a comparatively high level of mode-shift from single occupant autos to other modes, as is typical in Berkeley. Should a developer propose Transportation Demand Management programs that, based on an appropriate study, would further decrease single occupancy vehicles’ mode share, a lower fee might be justified. If a lower (or no) fee is applied based on a commitment to expanded TDM measures, this would be an incentive to incorporate these measures in local development. While credits for additional TDM measures would reduce the funding to support improvements in the area, the measures may also reduce congestion in West Berkeley. However, if a reduction is considered, it will also be important to balance the need for network investments to effectively support TDM.

Phasing – As active development projects in West Berkeley have often based

investments on existing costs of development, a graduated approach to implementing a new fee may be advisable. The Council, in enacting this fee may choose to reduce fees in the initial years of application. One example of such an option would to be apply the fees at 25% of the adopted rate for the first year. For the second year after the fee’s enactment, the fee could be charged at 50% the rate and for the third year the fees could be charged at 75% of the fee. Under this



7

example it would not be until four (4) years from the effective date of the fee that 100% of the WB TSF will be charged.

The shortfall resulting from such a graduated implementation, would need to be made up from either the local funding match, TSF revenue from additional development not projected in the Nexus Study, or a more aggressive program of grant solicitations. This alternative has the added benefit of allowing the City to move forward with establishing a fee while the information to support a fee is current, while acknowledging the current difficult economic conditions. A graduated roll out could create an incentive for land holders to move forward prior to the full fee implementation, which would be economically advantageous in other respects to the City.

Minimum Threshold - Properties that might otherwise be subject to the fee could

be made exempt if they fall under a certain size deemed impractical to implement or desirable to support.

Next Steps A July 15th joint meeting of the PAC and Transportation Commission was the first public review of the Draft Nexus Study. The PAC meeting July 22nd was targeted for West Berkeley stakeholder participation in the review of the Nexus Study. The results of these early meetings will be presented in summary to the Planning and Transportation Commission for consideration. The PAC is being decommissioned at the end of the month and their work and public comment made on the WB TSF will be passed to the Transportation and Planning Commissions. The Transportation Commission is expected to take action at their September 16, 2010 meeting. The Planning Commission’s review of the Nexus Study is part of the work on the West Berkeley Project. As Planning Commission action on the West Berkeley Project is planned in September 2010, the TSF and WB Project are expected to be acted on in parallel paths. The West Berkeley Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) includes most of the circulation improvements as mitigations and suggests adoption of a TSF or application of conditions of approval to new development projects to ensure fair-share funding. City Council is expected to consider the WB TSF Nexus Study and possible development of an ordinance in October or November 2010, concurrent with or shortly after action on the WB Project and DEIR.


West Berkeley Transportation

Services Fee (TSF)

Nexus Study

Prepared by

Berkeley’s Planning and Development Department

with technical assistance from EPS and WSA

City of Berkeley

July 9, 2010

Item 9 - Attachment 1

West Berkeley Transportation Services July, 2010 Fee Nexus Study 2

Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Policy Support ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Fee Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 6

Fee Use/Cost of Improvements (Benefit) ..................................................................................................... 7

Project Improvement Type ....................................................................................................................... 9

Cost Estimate (2010) ................................................................................................................................. 9

New Development’s Contributions (Impact) ................................................................................................ 9

Phasing ................................................................................................................................................ 13

Reasonable Relationship ............................................................................................................................. 13

Trip Generation Rates ............................................................................................................................. 14

Trip Generation per Development Assumptions .................................................................................... 15

Implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Applicability ............................................................................................................................................. 18

Credits ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

Exemptions.............................................................................................................................................. 19

Preferred Uses ‐ Reduction to Fee .......................................................................................................... 20

Phasing of Implementation ..................................................................................................................... 20

Requirements for Funds Use .................................................................................................................. 20

Review ..................................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 22

Appendix A: West Berkeley Capital Improvement & TDM Program ...................................................... 22

Appendix B: WB TSF Proportional Fee Calculation ................................................................................. 22

Appendix C: WB TSF Trip Generation Assumptions ................................................................................ 22



Executive Summary The purpose of the proposed West Berkeley Transportation Services Fee (WB TSF) is to ensure

that new development contributes its fair share of funding for the capital improvements and

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that will reduce the transportation

impacts from new development. Prior to approval of an impact fee, a Nexus Study is required,

which must explain the reasonable relationship between the proposed fee, its uses, and the

type of development project on which the fee will be imposed. In brief summary, this Nexus

Study is based on the following information and assumptions.

• A Capital Improvement Program specific to West Berkeley (WB CIP) of $86.2 M

• Outside funding (state and federal grants) will supplement local and TSF funding

• New development is responsible for 23% of the cost of local improvements and 8% of

the cost of regional improvements (after outside funding is subtracted)

• The resulting fair cost share of improvements for new development is $6.17 M, with the

remainder to be funded from other sources

• Based on the 2,246 vehicle trips (PM peak hour) projected from new development

subject to the fee, the resulting nexus is $2,748 per new PM peak trip.

Using West Berkeley trip generation rates for existing and proposed land uses, the maximum

justifiable fee per dwelling unit (du) or square foot of non‐residential development averages

$1.83/square foot and is described by use below:

Executive Summary ‐ Table A: Maximum Justifiable Fee by Use

Residential

Residential – Corridor $ 632 per du

Residential – Non‐corridor $ 1,209 per du

Office

General office $3.90 per sq ft

Retail


Retail (New Car Sales) $6.05 per sq ft

Restaurant (high turnover) $17.04 per sq ft

Restaurant (low turnover) $14.84 per sq ft

Industrial/Manufacturing




R&D

R&D $2.83 per sq ft

Use Sub‐Use

Proposed Fee



Introduction West Berkeley is a diverse area with commercial, industrial, and residential development. For

the purposes of this Nexus Study, it is defined as the area of Berkeley between Emeryville and

Oakland on the south, Albany on the north, San Pablo Avenue on the east and Interstate

80/580 on to the west. This area of Berkeley is a key travel corridor, providing the City’s primary

linkage with Interstate 80/580 and facilitating north/south travel between Oakland, Emeryville,

Albany and other cities along the San Pablo Avenue corridor.

The Berkeley Redevelopment Agency funded the West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan Report

(WBCMP Report) to analyze and identify capital improvements that would improve traffic and

circulation in the area. One of the recommendations in the WBCMP Report is establishment of

a transportation impact fee to help fund these improvements. This study provides the required

analysis for the City to adopt such a fee.

A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared in January 2010 for zoning ordinance

changes known as the “West Berkeley Project”. The DEIR provided updated traffic analysis and

growth projections that have been reviewed by City staff and were utilized in developing the

proposed Transportation Services Fee (TSF). Transportation improvements that were identified

in the WBCMP Report were included as mitigations in the DEIR.

Development impact fees are subject to constitutional limitations, which are codified in

California in the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.). Section 66001(a) requires a local government proposing to exact a development impact fee to:

(1) Identify the purpose of the fee. (2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may… be made by reference to a capital improvement plan… or… other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (3) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (4) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

The local agency must also “determine how there is a reasonable relationship between

the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility

attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.” (Gov. Code §66001(b).)



Policy Support In addition to, and supporting their inclusion in the West Berkeley Project DEIR, Berkeley has

various policies supporting both the capital improvements and Transportation Demand

Management (TDM) programs identified in the WBCMP Report and development of the

Transportation Services Fee (TSF) to help fund them.

General Plan ‐ The City of Berkeley’s General Plan Policy T‐6 Transportation Services Fee states, “Ensure that new development does not impact existing transportation services and facilities.”

Action: “Prepare a nexus study (pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) to enable

imposition and collection of a Transportation Impact Fee for new development projects.”

Reducing automobile reliance and vehicle miles traveled are Transportation Element

Objectives, as are maintaining and improving public transportation and creating a model

bicycle‐ and pedestrian‐friendly city. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the proposed WB

TSF includes multimodal capital improvements that enhance the physical infrastructure

available to vehicle, pedestrian, cyclists and transit users as well as reduce conflict with

vehicular mode users.

Other Plans – The CIP for the proposed WB TSF will support specific capital projects supported by

both the West Berkeley Area Plan and the General Plan Transportation Element policies.

Additional support is found in both the Pedestrian Plan (adopted June 2010) and Bike Plan

(updated 2005) as well as the University Avenue Strategic Plan (November 1996) and San Pablo

Avenue Public Improvement Plan (October 2003).

Zoning Ordinance – Section 23E.28.100 –Transportation Services Fee states: “A Transportation Services Fee (TSF) may be required for all new construction of gross floor area in commercial

and manufacturing districts, pursuant to resolution of the Council.” West Berkeley has one

commercial zoning district (C‐W) and four manufacturing districts (M, MM, MU‐R and MU‐LI) as

well as several residential zones.

Policy Support for TDM Program – The General Plan and Transportation Element of the

General Plan support development of a TDM program Citywide, inclusive of West Berkeley. In

particular, Policy T‐10 Trip Reduction states the goal is to “To reduce automobile traffic and

congestion and increase transit use and alternative modes in Berkeley, support, and when

appropriate require, programs to encourage Berkeley citizens and commuters to reduce

automobile trips.”



Fee Purpose The purpose of the proposed WB TSF is ensure that new development contributes its fair share

of funding for the capital improvements and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

programs that will reduce new development’s impacts. Specific improvements have been

identified in the TSF Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that have a demonstrated ability to

reduce the impacts of new development during the most congested portions of the day. These

improvements include transit, bicycle, pedestrian, rail crossing, and auto access improvements,

including physical enhancements such as bus bulb outs or queue jumps to increase transit

service efficiency. The fee will not support operational needs of transit or new transit services.

The only program supported by the fee is the development of a West Berkeley TDM program

including an integrated parking strategies plan.

The WB TSF will supplement State and Federal funding that may also be available to support

the proposed capital projects, including:

• SAFETEA‐LU – Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Safe, Accountable, Flexible,

Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users

• ARRA – Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

• HESP/HSIP – Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) ‐ a FHWA program with

separate funding, replacing the Hazard Elimination Program

• Caltrans/ SR2S –Caltrans has a number of programs including the Safe Routes to School

grant program which the City recently was awarded for use in part in West Berkeley

• STIP – State funded Regional Transportation Improvement Plan

• 1B and 1C Bonds – These Caltrans administered grants include a program target to rail

safety improvements and Transit Oriented Development

The City will seek approximately 80% of the funding for the following major infrastructure

projects serving regional through traffic from these sources:

• Gilman I‐80 Interchange

• Gilman RxR Grade Separation

• University I‐80 Interchange.

The remaining 20% of the cost of these projects is assumed to be funded locally. The WB TSF

will make up the portion of the local funding that cannot be attributed to existing deficiencies.

Local funding, including the General Fund, Highway Users Tax (HUTA), and West Berkeley

Project Area tax increment financing, will be used to address the local share attributable to

existing deficiencies. Additional information about external assumptions for funding is

provided in the “New Development’s Contributions (Impact)” Section of this report.



The range of funding sources identified in the WBCMP Report and the possible modes they may

serve are summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1: Funding Sources and Potential for Applying to Alternate Modes of Travel

Federal State Local/Regional

SAFETEA‐LU

HESP/HSIP

ARRA

EPA’s SSI

Caltrans

STIP

1B and 1C

Bonds

Measure B

Regional

City

Rail x x X

Automobile x x x x x X

Pedestrian x x x x X

Transit x x x x x x X

Bicycle x x x x

Fee Use/Cost of Improvements (Benefit) In 2008, the West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan (WBCMP) Report identified multimodal

improvements to the transportation network in West Berkeley to address future development

under existing zoning and the ongoing impacts from regional traffic growth. The proposed

projects included:

• Grade Separation at the Gilman Street rail crossing

• Rail safety investments at the 3rd Street right‐of‐way

• I‐80 Interchange safety and access improvements

• Local Roadway reconfigurations

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Network and Crossing Improvements

• Transit Capital Investments to improve transit operations

• Initial Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Development including

development of a parking management program

The list of each improvement proposed to be funded by the WB TSF and its cost are included in

Appendix A. In summary, nearly $86.2M (2010 dollars) in capital and program needs was

identified. This estimate includes:

• $58 M in high priority improvements identified in the WBCMP Report (2008 cost

estimates) for a majority of the improvements,

• Approximately $11 M for improvements not included in the WBCMP Report but listed as

mitigation for the WB Project DEIR (estimate by Wilbur Smith Associates),



• $15 M in increased cost for the Gilman Grade Separation above that published in the

WBCMP Report (Transportation Division expert judgment and analysis subsequent to

the publishing of the WBCMP Report), and

• Approximately $1.2 M from applying 2.3% total inflation to the 2008 estimates to arrive

at estimates in 2010 dollars.

• $1M to seed a WB Transportation Demand Management Program.

The funding proposed for the TDM Program will be targeted to development and

implementation of a parking management program, which both the WBCMP Report and the

West Berkeley Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) identified as the key

component for successful TDM in West Berkeley. Should funding exceed the costs of

establishment of a parking management program, the funding may be used to support other

TDM programs, including:

• Expand WB shuttle and improve marketing and coordination

• Provide TDM program services for small businesses

• Increase bike parking

• Develop mandatory and optional TDM regulations and incentives for new

development and existing businesses

• Integrate West Berkeley with Citywide wayfinding program

The West Berkeley Project DEIR describes how these improvements would mitigate the

combined traffic impacts of the WB Project zoning amendments, local and regional growth, and

existing local and regional uses of West Berkeley’s circulation network. The DEIR provides

information about growth and trip generation as described further in the Nexus Study, as well

as the environmental analysis for the proposed capital projects.

Of the total capital and TDM program of $86.2M, 40% ($35M) is to build a grade separation at

the Gilman railway crossing and another 28% ($24M) is for interchange improvements at

Gilman and University. The remaining 32% ($27.2 M) will provide locally serving bike,

pedestrian, rail safety, transit, and TDM improvements. The included interchanges have long

been identified as significant safety concerns, not only for motorists but for pedestrians and

bicyclists. The proposed improvements will address unacceptable congestion, and help knit

together the many parks, bikeways and amenities on the west side of the freeway with the rest

of Berkeley. Further while 68% of the total costs in the WB CIP are related to regional serving

auto improvements, most of the funding for these improvements will be from State and Federal

sources, rather than the proposed TSF. Local costs associated with the regional facilities make

up just 15% of the fee’s proposed uses ($944,000 of $6.17M).



Table 2, below, summarizes the improvement cost by mode. Appendix A enumerates each

improvement fundable by the proposed WB TSF, also grouped by mode.

Table 2: Summary of WB TSF CIP & TDM Program

Project Improvement Type Cost Estimate (2010)

Highway Interchanges and Approaches (including grade separation at rail) $59 M

Local Rail Safety $10.7 M

Local Roadway $3.1 M

Local Bicycle $5.6 M

Local Pedestrian $1.6 M

Local Transit Infrastructure $5.2 M

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program $1 M

TOTAL $86.2 M

New Development’s Contributions (Impact) In summary, the proportion of the costs to be covered by West Berkeley development is

derived by two factors:

1. Outside Funding Assumptions ‐ Likely share of the projects to be funded by regional, State or Federal funding sources, reflecting the regional use of impacted facilities and

thus not attributable to West Berkeley development

2. Existing Deficiency Assumptions ‐ Determination of the percentage of the cost that can

reasonably be attributed to existing deficiencies and thus not attributable to new development

Applying these two assumptions, $6.17 M of the $86.2 package (approximately 7%) is the share

of the proposed improvements fairly attributable to new West Berkeley development. The WB

TSF is applied based on development projects’ expected trip generation. After determining

the cost per vehicle trip, the fee would be assessed on new development on a square footage

or dwelling unit basis. The fee rate would be based on the type of development and would be

proportional to the expected volume of traffic to be generated by the project, adjusted for the

West Berkeley existing vehicular mode split. Further detail follows.

Outside Funding Assumption ‐ The “Local Funding” column in the table below shows the

percentage of the categories of capital improvements that can reasonably be attributed to City

of Berkeley (i.e., “Local Funding”) of which a portion is attributable to the TSF. Applying these

assumptions to the specific improvements to be included in the TSF, $34.5M of the $86.2M

(40%) will be needed from local sources. See Appendix B: Table 1.



Table 3: Sources of Funding for Capital Improvements

Improvement Outside Funding Local Funding Regional Improvements: Highway interchanges and approaches (including grade separation at rail)

80% 20%

Local road and pedestrian improvements ‐0‐ 100%

Local rail safety, bike, transit, and TDM improvements 20% 80%

The assumption that 80% of Interchange projects will be federally supported reflects a

reduction from the maximum Federal grant achievable (88.5%), but is significantly higher than

some grants which may require as high as a 50% match. Further, a Federal grant may not be

fully funded and local funding may need to cover a larger proportion of the planning and design

phases of large developments at significant costs. Finally, additional costs may arise after the

grant is awarded and additional gaps may remain, reflecting a gap to be addressed at the state,

regional or local level. Therefore, 80% is a reasonable assumption for outside funding for

regional improvements. While 100% of Local Road and Pedestrian projects are assumed to fall

solely to local sources to fund, prior grant success rates indicate 20% of bike and transit projects

can be expected to be externally funded. Review of the proposed WB TSF and its CIP could

include updates on the applicability of these assumptions and revise the fee in subsequent

years up or down accordingly.

Existing Deficiency Assumption ‐ After determining the proportion of improvements that

can generally be expected to be externally funded, the next step in the process of arriving at a

TSF is a determination of the percentage of the remaining cost that can reasonably be

attributed to new development. This Nexus Study assumes that new development is

responsible for 23% of the cost of local improvements and the proposed WB TDM Program and

8% of the cost of regional improvements1. A summary of the basis of these assumptions

follows the table below, which provides an overview of the calculations showing that $6.17

Million is new development’s share of the improvements needed to address its transportation

impacts.

1 Additional information regarding these assumptions is provided in Appendix B: Table 1



Table 4: Calculation of Nexus Amount for TSF Fee

Project Type Cost

Estimate

(2010)

Local

Funding

Required

Existing

Development

Share

New

Development

Share

Highway Interchanges and

Approaches (including grade

separation at rail)

$59 M

20% =

$11.8 M

92% =

$10.9 M

8% =

$944,000

Local Rail Safety Improvements $10.7 M 80% =

$8.6 M

77% =

$6.6 M

23% =

$1.98 M

Local Roadway Improvements $3.1 M 100% =

$3.1 M

77% =

$2.4 M

23% =

$720,000

Local Bicycle Improvements $5.6 M 80% =

$4.5 M

77% =

$3.5 M

23% =

$1.04M

Local Pedestrian Improvements $1.6 M 100% =

$1.6 M

77% =

$1.2 M

23% =

$360,000

Local TDM & Transit

Improvements

$6.2 M 80% =

$ 4.9 M

77% =

$3.8 M

23% =

$1.13 M

TOTAL $86.2 M $34.5 M $28.4 M $6.17 M

Regional Serving Projects ‐ Projects with significant regional impacts (assumed here to

include each roadway with a freeway interchange) were analyzed in the West Berkeley

Transportation Traffix Model (a model programmed as part of the WBCMP Report efforts, using

software allowing modeling specific to each West Berkeley intersection). Specifically, 11

intersections known as “gateways” at the edges of West Berkeley (at the Albany and Emeryville

borders and San Pablo Avenue and Eastshore roadways), were analyzed to determine the

proportion of year 2030 traffic during the evening peak commute attributed to existing West

Berkeley development and regional traffic, and thus not subject to fee. The model revealed that

the project development would account for an average 8% increase at each “gateway”

intersection in the 2030 evening peak commute. Based on this, new development’s share of the

cost of these capital improvements will be assessed at 8%.

Local Serving Projects ‐ Currently there is approximately 10.8 M sq ft of existing built

development in West Berkeley (source: County Assessor database ‐ 2006). The expected total

of existing and new development is projected to be 14.5M square feet. The WB Project DEIR



assumed that cumulative development between 2010 and 2030 would add 2.1 M new non‐

residential square footage and just fewer than 1,800 dwelling units (approximately 1.7M square

feet of new residential development). This 3.8 M square feet of development is 26% of the

total built area expected to be contributing to trips in 2030. However as summarized in Table 5

below, the fee will not be imposed on projects with issued building permits or development

agreements that exclude application of the fee. Therefore, new development will be

responsible for 23% of the local share of proposed capital improvements and the WB TDM

Program.

Table 5: WB Project EIR Land Use Assumptions By Type (Cumulative)

Use

Sq. Ft.

to be

Developed

% of

New

Sq. Ft.

Residential 1,750,892 46%

R&D 1,187,874 31%

Office 148,566 4%

Manufacturing/Industrial 737,104 19%

Commercial/retail 16,082 0.4%

Total New 3,840,518 100%

Existing 10,841,814 NA

Total Square Footage 2030 14,682,332 NA

New Development ‐ not

subject to the fee 470,104 12.80%

New Development Subject to Fee 3,370,414 NA

New Development Subject to Fee % of Total Square Footage 23.0% NA



Phasing Of the total development, 63% is projected to be developed between 2015 and 2030. The

other 37% of the project development is expected by 2015 and includes projects already

approved, but not yet developed.

Table 6: WB Project EIR Land Use Assumptions Phases

Square Feet to be Built by Land Use Type per WB Project DEIR

Use

2015 2015 + project

2030 2030

+Project Cumulative (2030)

Cumulative (2030) +Project

Residential 568,293 568,293

1,153,806

1,153,806

1,750,892

1,750,892

Office 14,547 14,547 148,566 148,566 148,566 148,566

R&D 96,547 376,548

134,019

959,893

230,566

1,187,874

Manufacturing/Industrial 301,273

421,273

714,897

315,831

1,016,170

737,104

Commercial/ Retail 42,229

42,449

(26,367)

(26,367)

16,082

16,082

Total New Sq Ft

1,022,889 1,423,110 2,124,921 2,551,729 3,162,276 3,840,518

Existing 10,841,814 10,841,814

10,841,814

10,841,814

10,841,814

10,841,814

All 11,864,703 12,264,924 12,966,735 13,393,543 14,004,090 14,682,332

% increase 27% 37% 55% 66% 82% 100%

% Total 7% 10% 14% 17% 22% 26%

Reasonable Relationship The above sections describe the basis of the assumptions for the amount of growth anticipated

in West Berkeley. The next step in calculating a transportation impact fee is to explain the

relationship between square footage, types of uses, and trips to the maximum justifiable fee.

The WB Project EIR and WBCMP Report established a rigorous method for projecting expected



trip generation in West Berkeley based on existing travel patterns and modified Institute of

Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates by use type and proximity to transit corridors.2

Trip Generation Rates The period during which the circulation network in West Berkeley is most congested is during

the evening peak commute hours. Therefore, a reduction in vehicular trips during the PM peak

is the metric used for determining the improvements needed and to establish the WB TSF.

The WB Project DEIR establishes that 2,491 total new vehicle trips during the PM peak hour

could be generated by the 3.8 M in net new square feet of West Berkeley development from

2010 to 2030. To arrive at this projection, Wilbur Smith and Associates took the ITE published

standard trip generation rates and adjusted the rates downward depending on actual survey

data from West Berkeley trip generators. Survey data used to revise the ITE rates included Trip

to Work data from the 2000 Census and other trip data from the 2000 MTC Bay Area Travel

Survey (BATS). Additionally a pass‐by percentage (or the assumed likelihood a trip for one

purpose is combined with another purpose) was taken based on the land use.

In addition, trip generation adjustments were applied to uses locating near transit rich

“corridors.” These corridors are the arterials offering the highest transit service in West

Berkeley as well as neighborhood serving retail. The only corridors in West Berkeley meeting

these criteria are on San Pablo and University Avenue. In areas adjacent to these corridors, an

additional adjustment was made to the ITE manual rates, which are typically based on more

suburban trip generation rates, resulting in adjusted PM peak vehicle trips. More details on the

method outlined here is available at the following link:

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_‐

_Redevelopment_Agency/Appendix%20B%20Trip%20Generation%20Methodology%20Final.pdf

and in Appendix C: WB TSF Trip Generation Assumptions.

Applying these factors to ITE classifications, the following resulting PM peak hour trip

generation rates were established for typical types of land use in West Berkeley as summarized

in Table 7.

2 Transit corridors in West Berkeley include both University and San Pablo Avenues. Each of these corridors are

zoned C‐W. Ashby Avenue is also zoned C‐W but lacks the concentration of bus routes to be considered a transit

corridor.



Table 7: Trip Generation Rates in West Berkeley by Land Use

Use

ITE Land

Use [A]

PM Trip Generation Rate [B]

Residential

Residential ‐ Corridor 223 0.23

Residential ‐ Non‐Corridor 221 0.44

Office Office (General office) 710 1.42

Retail

Specialty Retail 814 1.86

Retail (New Car Sales) 841 2.2

Restaurant (High turnover) 932 6.2

Restaurant (Low turnover) 931 5.4


General Light Industry 110 0.98

Warehouse 150 0.4

Heavy industrial 120 0.5

R&D R&D 760 1.03 Average 0.7

(A) Source: WB Project EIR Appendix H ‐ Trip Generation. ITE Trip rates were adjusted to City‐specific rates per Census and BATS and pass‐by %. Rate is for vehicles per PM peak hour. Residential rate per dwelling unit (961.5 sq ft) and non‐residential rate is per 1,000 sq ft. No new TDM measures assumed applied but credit for mode split among existing population applied. (B) Trip generation rates as included in the WB Project Draft EIR March, 2010 See Appendix H Page 1509‐1516 at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_‐_Redevelopment_Agency/WB_DEIR_Technical_Appendix.pdf

Trip Generation per Development Assumptions Based on the analysis in the WB Project DEIR and as described above, new development in

West Berkeley is projected to create 2,491 new PM peak hour trips. These trips are expected to

be created by the uses as summarized in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Trip Generation Projections for West Berkeley from local development per WB DEIR with Adjustment

New WB Construction 2010‐2030 PM Peak Vehicle Trips PM Peak Vehicle Trips subject to the Fee

Residential 448 410

R&D 1,408 1,391

Manufacturing/Industrial 577 438

Commercial/retail 58 8

Total New 2,491 2,247



Cost Per New Trip

As discussed above in “West Berkeley Contributions”, $6.17 M is the cost of improvements that

is assignable to new local development in West Berkeley subject to the fee. Spreading this cost

over 2,247 PM peak hour trips results in a justifiable cost for West Berkeley of $2,748 per PM

vehicle trip.

Cost Per Square Foot by Use

Table 9 uses a vehicle trip cost of $2,748 and the established trip generation projections in

Table 8 to derive the following per square foot or dwelling unit maximum cost for each category

of use.

Table 9: WB TSF – Maximum Justifiable Fee per Use

Use Sub‐Use

Proposed Fee

Residential

Residential – Corridor $ 632 per du

Residential – Non‐corridor $ 1209 per du

Office

Office (General office) $3.90 per sq ft

Retail


Retail (New Car Sales) $6.05 per sq ft

Restaurant (high turnover) $17.04 per sq ft

Restaurant (low turnover) $14.84 per sq ft





R&D R&D $2.83 per sq ft

With $6.17 M in costs with nexus to local development not yet approved and 3,370,414 square

feet in new development expected, the average fee is $1.83 per square foot. See Appendix B ‐ Table 3.

Table 10 shows projected revenue on the following page.



Table10: Projected Revenue by Use

Use Projected Revenue % of Revenue

Residential $1,126,781 18%

Office $530,411 9%

Retail $21,986 0%

Industrial/Manufacturing $1,203,732 19%

R&D $3,292,398 53%

Total $6,175,308 100%

Additional detail is found in Appendix B Table 3 regarding these revenue assumptions.



Implementation

Applicability The proposed fee would be applicable to all new development in Berkeley on or west of San

Pablo Avenue and on or east of the Eastshore Frontage Road, and would be applied to all new

developed manufacturing, commercial and residential uses within the C‐W, M, MM, MU‐R, and

MU‐LI zoned lands. The ordinance approving the TSF will provide detail on its implementation,

including credits and/or fee reductions which may be provided as discussed below.

Credits Implementation of the TSF will include providing credits for:

• Improvements provided by development projects

• TDM Measures provided by development projects

• Prior uses

Credit for Project Improvements:

A project’s TSF payment may be reduced if an applicant constructs a capital project which is

included on the TSF CIP list. Credit is given on a $1 to $1 ratio up the amount required by the

TSF. An applicant may be required to construct an off‐site capital improvement based on the

project’s environmental review or as a condition of project approval. No credit is given for

mitigations made on the site or for improvements not in the TSF CIP. The basis for calculating

the fee for which credit will be applied and exemptions from credits will be addressed in the

ordinance establishing the TSF.

Credits for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs and Improvements:

The WB TSF is intended to mitigate vehicular traffic impacts through mode shifts, which in turn

reduces the number of trips made. The trip generation rate and proposed fee level is based on

the existing level of TDM implementation3 among West Berkeley employers and residences and

thus a continued requirement for on‐site TDM measures in addition to the fee is reasonable.

Developers who believe their TDM program would lower trip generation rates beyond that

included in the WB Traffic model could seek a reduction to fees. Any reduction allowed to the

3 See Appendix C: Table 1: Trip Generation Adjustments or for more detail see

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_‐

_Redevelopment_Agency/Appendix%20B%20Trip%20Generation%20Methodology%20Final.pdf



maximum justifiable fee will need to balance site specific investments against network

investments to effectively support TDM.

Credit for Existing Uses: Existing uses that generate traffic may be demolished or converted to a new use as part of

larger construction project. In such case, the area demolished or converted will be credited

against the gross square feet of construction to determine net gross feet added. Credits for

existing square footage or dwelling units removed will be calculated at the rate as for the

entitled use. Should the new use be less than the existing use (e.g. a restaurant converting to a

retail space) no fee will be charged and no credit paid. “Credits” for reduction in the required

TSF payment for current trip generation (existing use) will be made 1 for 1 for trips, accounting

for differential trip generation rates by use such that 1,000 sq. ft. of retail converting to 1,000

sq. ft. of office will have the credit applied on a trip basis, not on a square footage basis for

reduction.

The ordinance that will be developed to implement the TSF will address possible credit for

vacant buildings. Buildings that were vacant as of the date of the last traffic counts used for the

TSF calculations would be required to pay the TSF because the proposed project’s traffic

generation would be new. However, as described in the previous paragraph, changes in use

would receive credit for the previous use.

Intensification – Where there is an intensification of use rather than additional floor area, the

applicant will pay the difference between the original use(s) and the proposed use(s). The fee

would be calculated as follows:

Sum:

• New Residential Component: Units x fee per unit

• New Non‐residential Component(s) by Use: sq ft of existing use(s) x price per sq ft for

use

minus the sum of:

• Original Residential Component: Units x fee per unit

• Original Non‐residential Component(s) by Use: sq ft of original use x price per sq ft for

use

Equals net fee. If the resulting value is negative, no fee is due.

Exemptions Properties that might otherwise be subject to the fee are exempt if:

• A site comprising modification or development of less than 1,000 square feet



• Site changes which trigger neither a use permit nor a building permit

Preferred Uses ‐ Reduction to Fee Preferred uses as identified by the City Council may be exempt from the WB TSF or be assigned

a reduced fee. However, the loss of funding from such a reduction cannot be passed to other

uses to which the WB TSF is to be applied, but rather would create additional burden for local

funding.

Phasing of Implementation As current development in West Berkeley may have already sought financing based on existing

costs of development, a graduated approach to implementing the fee may be advisable. The

Council in enacting this fee may choose to reduce fees in the initial years of application. One

example of such an option would to be apply the fees at 25% of the justifiable rate for the first

year. For the second year after the fee’s enactment, the fee could be charged at 50% the rate

and for the third year the fees could be charged at 75% of the fee. Under this example it would

not be until three (3) years from the effective date of the fee that 100% of the WB TSF will be

charged.

The shortfall resulting from such a graduated implementation, would need to be made up from

either the local funding match, TSF revenue from additional development not projected in the

Nexus Study, or a more aggressive program of grant solicitations. This alternative has the

benefit of allowing the City to move forward while the information to support a fee is current,

while acknowledging the current difficult economic conditions. A graduated roll out could

create an incentive for land holders to move forward prior to the full fee implementation,

which would be economically advantageous to the City.

Requirements for Funds Use Revenues resulting from the imposition of the WB TSF must be kept and administered in a

separate account or fund dedicated to the public improvements being financed and must not

be commingled with other revenues and funds of the local agency (Government Code section

66006). In addition, five years after the first deposit into the account or fund, the local agency

must make specific findings regarding any unexpended funds, whether those funds are

committed to expenditure or not (Government Code section 66001). The same findings must

continue to be made once every five years thereafter. If these findings are not made, statute

requires the agency to refund the fees to the current owner of the affected property. Refunds

may be made by direct payment, temporary suspension of fees, or "other reasonable means,"

at the discretion of the local agency.



Review The WB TSF will be reviewed and revised on an as‐needed basis to account for material changes

in circumstances, including changes in:

• data regarding trip making in West Berkeley (new traffic counts, new census or

comprehensive surveying of trip making patterns),

• project improvement costs, and

• development assumptions.



Appendices

Appendix A: West Berkeley Capital Improvement & TDM Program Insert Tables 1‐6 inclusive of Bike, Transit & TDM Program, Pedestrians, Auto, Rail and Truck Capital

Improvements

Appendix B: WB TSF Proportional Fee Calculation Insert Tables 1‐3 WB TSF Fee Calculation

Appendix C: WB TSF Trip Generation Assumptions Insert Table 1


Appendix A WB TSF CIP & TDM Program ‐ Table 1: Vehicular Circulation Improvements

Location Mitigation

Gilman & RxR

Construct a Grade‐Separated Rail Crossing at Gilman Street. The City should construct a grade separation at Gilman

Street. This would eliminate concerns if queuing to and from adjacent intersections, improving safety and

operations. A conceptual diagram of this mitigation is shown in the Technical Appendix – Traffic Analysis. 20,000,000$ 35,000,000$

Gilman & I80

Gilman Street/I‐80 Roundabout. The City should continue to work with Caltrans to develop the proposed dual

roundabout project at the Gilman Street/I‐80 Interchange. As shown in Table 4‐54, below, this project would

reduce queue lengths well below the available storage and mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. The

conceptual design for this improvement is shown in the Technical Appendix – Traffic Analysis. 15,700,000$ 16,061,100$

University & I80

University Avenue/West Frontage Road Interchange Redesign. Further investigation of an interchange redesign for

the westbound on/off ramp and West Frontage Road at University Avenue would reduce queuing and spillback. A

proposed roundabout design has been identified which would eliminate the queuing impact as shown in Table 4‐

54. The conceptual design for this improvement is shown in the Technical Appendix – Traffic Analysis. 7,750,000$ 7,928,250$

5th and University

Install Traffic Signal. The City should install a traffic signal at the intersection of University Avenue and southbound

5th Street; operate it as a group control with the traffic signal located at the intersection of University Avenue and

6th Street. The proposed geometric improvements are shown in the Technical Appendix – Traffic Analysis. Restripe

Southbound 5th Street. The City should restripe the southbound 5th Street to allow vehicles to make a right turn

onto Frontage Road and University Avenue, both. 1,000,000$ 1,023,000$

Ashby & 5th

Extend 5th Street. The City should extend 5th Street to Ashby Avenue; operate the southbound approach at the

intersection of Ashby Avenue and 5th Street as a yield‐controlled right‐in/right‐out movement and other approaches

as free movements. This configuration is shown in the Technical Appendix‐ Traffic Analysis. 750,000$ 767,250$

System

SMART Corridors Program. The city should continue to work with the ACCMA and Caltrans on the SMART corridors

program and explore innovative signalization systems such as adaptive signalization to optimize capacity on arterial

segments in West Berkeley. 700,000$ 716,100$ Extended Queues at

Hearst Avenue At‐

Grade Rail Crossing. Install a Traffic Signal to reduce 4th an Hearst Queuing at 3rd Street Tracks 240,000$ 245,520$

I80 & Gilman, Ashby

and University

Integrated Corridor Mobility Project. The City should continue coordination with Caltrans and the ACCMA to

implement the Integrated Corridor Mobility Project along I‐80 and other strategies to improve operational

performance and/or reduce demand. Acknowledge that improvements to these segments of the I‐80/I‐580

corridor would reduce spillover traffic on West Berkeley’s arterial facilities, namely San Pablo Avenue. 180,000$ 184,140$

Ashby & 7th

Remove/Replace Traffic Signal. The City should remove the traffic signal located at the intersection of 7th Street and

Potter Street; install stop signs along east/west approaches of Potter Street; convert the Potter Street approaches

to right‐in/right‐out movements. Install Traffic Signal. The City should install a traffic signal at the intersection of

7th Street and Anthony Street; restripe the southbound approach as shared left‐through lane and one right‐turn

lane; construct a left‐turn pocket along eastbound approach and convert the existing shared left‐through‐right lane

to a shared through‐right lane. 180,000$ 184,140$

Cost per WBCMP Report

Adj for Inflation/New Information


Appendix A WB TSF CIP & TDM Program ‐ Table 1: Vehicular Circulation Improvements

Location Mitigation

Cost per WBCMP Report

Adj for Inflation/New Information

University Avenue and

6th Street

Protect Left Turn Movement on Southbound Approach. The City should convert left‐turning movements from

permissive to protected movement. $ 8,000 8,184$

Dwight Way and San

Pablo Avenue.

Replace parking with an Additional Lane on Eastbound Approach. The City should convert parking to an additional

lane, and convert the existing left‐turning lane to a shared left‐through lane. $ 5,000 5,115$

Dwight Way and San

Pablo Avenue.

Construct Additional Lane on Westbound Approach. The City should construct an additional lane, and convert the

existing left‐turning lane to a shared left‐through lane. $ 5,000 5,115$

Cedar Street and San

Pablo Avenue

Protect Northbound and Southbound Left‐Turn Movements. The City should convert northbound and southbound

left‐turning movements from permissive to protected movements. $ 4,000 4,092$

Dwight Way and 7th

Street/Dwight Crescent Convert Southbound 7th Street to a Cul‐de‐Sac. $ 2,500

2,558$ Extended Queues at

Hearst Avenue At‐

Grade Rail Crossing. Create 100‐foot Right Turn Pocket on Eastbound Approach. 800$ 818$ Extended Queues at

Hearst Avenue At‐

Grade Rail Crossing. Create a 50‐foot Right Turn Pocket on Northbound Approach. 800$ 818$

Ashby & 7th

Convert Turning Movements. The City should convert the northbound and southbound left turning movements at

the intersection of Ashby Avenue and 7th Street from split to protected movements. NA NA

Dwight Way and 7th

Street/Dwight Crescent Optimize Cycle Length of the Traffic Signal. NA NA

Subtotal ‐ Vehicular Improvements 46,526,100$ 62,136,200$

Highway Interchanges 43,450,000$ 58,989,350$ Local Roadways 3,076,100$ 3,146,850$

Portion of City Share of Regional Improvements 20% 20%

Portion of City Share of Regional Improvements with Nexus to New Development 8% 8%

Proportional Cost 695,200$ 943,830$

Portion of Local Auto with Nexus to New Development 23% 23%


Nexus to WB Development for Local and Regional Auto Improvements 1,402,703$ 1,667,605$


Appendix A WB TSF CIP & TDM Program‐ Table 2: Pedestrian Circulation improvements

Location Mitigation Cost 2010 EstimateCedar between 4th and

10th

Improve pedestrian crossings along Cedar between 4th and 10th to include pavement striping, sidewalk

bulbouts and truncated domes where appropriate and needed 575,000$ 588,225$

University between 6th

and 10th

Improve pedestrian crossings along University between 6th and 10th Streets by adding sidewalk bulbs, ADA

compliant pedestrian refuges, directional curb ramps, truncated domes, signal countdown heads, audible

crosswalks and improved crossing times where appropriate and needed 400,000$ 409,200$

Dwight between 4th

and 10th

Improve pedestrian crossings along Dwight between 4th and 10th to include pavement striping, sidewalk

bulbouts and truncated domes where appropriate and needed 293,000$ 299,739$ Jones and San Pablo Install flashing pedestrian crossings at Jones along San Pablo 120,000$ 122,760$ Cedar Street on east

side of San Pablo Extend paved median along Cedar Street on east side of San Pablo to reach crosswalk on San Pablo Ave 37,500$ 38,363$ Adjacent to James

Kenney Park and Misc

NB sidewalks

Pave sidewalks (full block) adjacent to James Kenney Park on 7th and 8th, along 9th between Cedar and Page,

along west side of 8th between Camelia and Gilman, along east side of 7th between Camelia and Harrison,

and along Harrison between 7th and 8th 36,000$ 36,828$ San Pablo at Gilman,

Cedar, University,

Dwight and Ashby

Improve pedestrian crossings along San Pablo at Gilman, Cedar, University, Dwight and Ashby to include

directional pedestrian curb ramps 25,000$ 25,575$ Gilman between 5th

and 10th

Improve pedestrian crossings along Gilman between 5th and 10th to include pavement striping, perpendicular

curb ramps and truncated domes where appropriate and needed 25,000$ 25,575$

San Pablo at Gilman,

Cedar, Delaware,

Allston, Dwight,

Grayson and Ashby and

at 6th and Hearst

Install audible signals along San Pablo at Gilman, Cedar, Delaware, Allston, Dwight, Grayson and Ashby and at

6th and Hearst 16,000$ 16,368$ San Pablo and

University Implement a pedestrian scramble phase at San Pablo and University 5,000$ 5,115$ University and San

Pablo

Remove pedestrian actuation from controller at University and San Pablo and make pedestrian walk phase

with audible signal automatic on all legs 1,000$ 1,023$

Subtotal ‐ Pedestrian Improvements 1,533,500$ 1,568,771$

Portion of Pedestrian Improvements with Nexus to New Development 23% 23%


Nexus to WB Development for Pedestrian Improvements 352,705$ 360,817$


Appendix A: WB TSF CIP & TDM Program ‐ Table 3: Bicycle Circulation improvements

Location Mitigation Cost 2010 EstimateSystem Add bike/pedestrian scale lighting to Channing, Heinz, Virginia, and 9th St Bicycle Boulevards 4,500,000$ 4,603,500$

Ashby & 9th

9th and Ashby intersection improvements: extend bike boulevard south from 9th St. to connect to Emeryville

Greenway, create new SB drive lane from West Berkeley Bowl to Ashby, separate SB turns (right turn heading WB on

west side of bike path crossing; left turn heading EB on east side of path), extend width of intersection to include new

SB drive and bike crossing, stencil 9th St. between Ashby and Anthony as bike boulevard, remove stop control at 9th

and Potter in SB direction; 500,000$ 511,500$

6th and Channing

Apply appropriate bike intersection treatment to 6th and Channing, either Type 3 (bike refuge median with no left- or U-turns on 6th to Channing) or Type 4 (HAWK signal with a partial signal phase) 200,000$ 204,600$

Addison/Allston

Create parallel bike boulevard facility to University Ave. to connect Downtown Berkeley/UC to bike bridge via either

Addison or Allston. Implement an appropriate bike boulevard crossing (Type 3 or 4) across San Pablo Ave. including

consideration of Addison’s offset alignment at San Pablo Ave. 125,000$ 127,875$

Channing Virginia, 4th

and 5th

Connect Virginia and Channing bike boulevards to bike bridge by designating 5th Street (between Virginia and Hearst),

4th Street (between Hearst and Channing) and Hearst (between 5th and 4th Streets) as bike boulevards 85,000$ 86,955$ System Paint colored bicycle lanes to increase visibility for motorists 40,000$ 40,920$ Russell and Heinz bike

boulevards at San

Pablo Av

Improve connection between Russell and Heinz bike boulevards through connection to Oregon and installation of

appropriate bike boulevard crossing treatment (Type 3 or 4) at San Pablo Ave. on Oregon and Heinz, considering the

offset intersection 12,500$ 12,788$

Virginia and San Pablo Apply appropriate bike boulevard crossing treatment (Type 3 or 4) at Virginia and San Pablo 8,000$ 8,184$ Channing and San

Pablo Apply appropriate bike boulevard crossing treatment (Type 3 or 4) at Channing and San Pablo 8,000$ 8,184$

System Add painted markings where bike lanes cross right turn lanes to indicate conflict area between bikes and autos 8,000$ 8,184$ Cedar and 9th St. Apply bike intersection treatment 1 (signage and striping) to Cedar and 9th St. 5,000$ 5,115$

System

Remove or flip stop signs on bicycle boulevards to limit stopping of bikes. Implement traffic calming as necessary to

limit auto use of these facilities 3,500$ 3,581$

Gilman and 6th and 8th Add bike boxes at Gilman and 8th and Gilman and 6th intersections 2,500$ 2,558$ Heinz and 7th St. Add bike loop detectors to signal at Heinz and 7th St. 1,800$ 1,841$ Dwight and 9th St. Apply bike intersection treatment 1 (signage and striping) to Dwight and 9th St. 1,200$ 1,228$ Heinz and 9th St. Apply bike intersection treatment 1 (signage and striping) to Heinz and 9th St. 1,200$ 1,228$

Subtotal ‐ Bicycle Improvements 5,501,700$ 5,628,239$ 80% 80%

Portion of Bicycle Improvements with Nexus to New Development 23% 23%

Proportional Cost 1,012,313$ 1,035,596$

Nexus to WB Development for Bicycle Improvements 1,012,313$ 1,035,596$


Appendix A WB TSF CIP & TDM Program ‐ Table 4: Transit Circulation Improvements and TDM Program

Location Mitigation Cost 2010 EstimateSystem Add real time information displays to all stops in West Berkeley 1,200,000$ 1,227,600$

System

TDM Measures. The City should support the development and implementation of a West Berkeley TDM and parking

strategies plan.

• a parking program with specific attention to pricing strategies that make transit cost competitive with single

occupancy vehicles

• Expansion of WB shuttle operator’s programs to include TDM programs comparable to larger firms like Bayer’s to

small West Berkeley businesses

• Coordination with shuttle and transit providers for expanded service and marketing

• Increase bike parking

• Sets mandatory TDM on‐site measures for new developments and existing development

• Sets incentives for optional TDM measures applicable to new and existing developments

• Integrate West Berkeley with Citywide wayfinding program 1,000,000$ 1,023,000$

System

On‐Going Coordination with Berkeley Gateway Transportation Management Association. The City of Berkeley should

continue coordination with the Berkeley Gateway Transportation Management Association (TMA) and other WBS

funding partners (including several large employers in West Berkeley) to assure continued effective operation of the

WBS; recruit new West Berkeley employers as funding partners for the WBS and expand or adjust WBS service to

meet the demands of new West Berkeley employers. included above included above

System

On‐Going Coordination with AC Transit. The City of Berkeley should continued coordination with AC Transit to best

accommodate the needs of AC Transit riders in West Berkeley with available funding; work to identify new funding

sources, grants, and programs that may become available and apply these funds toward maintaining adequate

service on the core AC Transit routes serving West Berkeley. included above included above

Dwight Way Add AC Transit Transbay service along Dwight Way that could connect directly to Telegraph and UC Berkeley 800,000$ 818,400$ System Extend Route 19 to Downtown (all day) and improve frequencies to 20 minutes 800,000$ 818,400$

Ashby/6th/7th/Cedar

Extend transit or shuttle service to connect North Berkeley BART to Ashby BART along Ashby/6th/7th/Cedar Streets.

Service would be a weekday peak hour service on 20‐minute headways in both directions 600,000$ 613,800$

University Avenue

Upgrade high ridership AC transit stops on University Ave. based on San Pablo Corridor bus stop guidelines (Type A, C,

D, and E stops) 320,500$ 327,872$

San Pablo Avenue

Apply appropriate transit intersection improvements (bus bulbs and/or queue jumps) at congested locations (Ashby,

Dwight, University, Gilman) along San Pablo 320,000$ 327,360$ San Pablo and Cedar Add rapid stop at San Pablo and Cedar 250,000$ 255,750$ University Ave at San

Pablo Install queue jump lanes along University Ave at San Pablo in EB and WB directions 250,000$ 255,750$ Gilman at San Pablo Install peak hour queue jump lanes along Gilman at San Pablo in EB and WB directions 160,000$ 163,680$ University Ave at 6th Install queue jump lanes along University Ave at 6th St. in the WB and EB direction 160,000$ 163,680$

University Ave.

between Curtis and 5th

Create peak hour transit only lane along University Ave. in EB and WB directions between Curtis and 5th Street by

restricting parking (tow‐away lane enforcement) 80,000$ 81,840$


Appendix A WB TSF CIP & TDM Program ‐ Table 4: Transit Circulation Improvements and TDM Program

Location Mitigation Cost 2010 Estimate

San Pablo and Gilman Improve connections and transfers of Route 9 and other transit services at San Pablo and Gilman 50,000$ 51,150$ San Pablo at Cedar and

Virginia Improve lighting and shelters at San Pablo bus stops (Cedar and Virginia) 12,500$ 12,788$ Hearst and 6th Move nearside SB AC Transit stop at Hearst and 6th to farside location 5,000$ 5,115$ Heinz and 7th Move nearside SB AC Transit stop at Anthony and 7th to farside location of Heinz and 7th 3,500$ 3,581$

6th Street

Improve AC Transit Transbay service to West Berkeley along 6th Street through new service or modified/upgraded

existing service ‐$ ‐$

University Avenue Provide more direct bus service from Downtown Berkeley to Berkeley Pier/Cesar Chavez Park (existing 51M) ‐$ ‐$ System Increase frequency of Route 9 service to 20 minute headways throughout the day ‐$ ‐$ University Ave Improve bus connection from Downtown/UC to West Berkeley and Amtrak station ‐$ ‐$

6,011,500$ 6,149,765$ Subtotal ‐ Transit Improvements and TDM Program 80% 80%

Portion of Transit and TDM Improvements with Nexus to New Development 23% 23%


Nexus to WB Development for Transit and TDM Improvements 1,106,116$ 1,131,557$


Appendix A WB TSF CIP & TDM Program‐ Table 5: Rail Safety/Vehicular Crossing Improvements

Location Mitigation Cost Per WBCMP

Report 2010 Estimate

Gilman & RxR 4 quad gate (interim solution until grade separation is designed and constructed) 1,500,000$ 1,534,500$ Camelia & RxR 4 quad gate 1,500,000$ 1,534,500$ Cedar & RxR 4 quad gate 1,500,000$ 1,534,500$ Virginia & RxR 4 quad gate 1,500,000$ 1,534,500$ Hearst & RxR 4 quad gate 1,500,000$ 1,534,500$ Addison & RxR 4 quad gate 1,500,000$ 1,534,500$ Bancroft & RxR 4 quad gate 1,500,000$ 1,534,500$

Subtotal ‐ Rail Safety Improvements 10,500,000$ 10,741,500$

Internal Funding 8,400,000$ 8,593,200$

Portion of Rail Improvements with Nexus to New Development 23% 23%


Nexus to WB Development for Rail Safety Improvements 1,932,000$ 1,976,436$


Appendix B: WB TSF Proportional Fee Calculation - Table 1: Cost of Capital Improvement Program and Nexus to Proposed West Berkeley TSF

West Berkeley Project Costs (in millions)

Cost per

WBCMPR

(2008 $M)

Cost per OOT

(2010 $M)

External

Funding

% Assumed

Externally

Funded

Berkeley

Amount

New West

Berkeley City ($M) WB Nexus ($M)

Description (1) (1) (2) (3) (4)

Regional improvements Gross Sq Ft Net Sq FtGilman/I-80 Roundabouts (4) 15.7 16.1 12.9 80% 3.2 8% 3.0 0.26Gilman RR Grade Separation 20.0 35.0 28.0 80% 7.0 8% 6.4 0.56University/I-80 interchange 7.8 7.9 6.3 80% 1.6 8% 1.5 0.13

Local ImprovementsRailway Crossing Safety improvements 10.5 10.7 2.1 20% 8.6 23.0% 6.6 1.98Roadway Improvements 3.1 3.1 0.0 0% 3.1 23.0% 2.4 0.72Bicycle Improvements 5.5 5.6 1.1 20% 4.5 23.0% 3.5 1.04Pedestrian Improvements 1.5 1.6 0.0 0% 1.6 23.0% 1.2 0.36Transit Improvements 5.0 5.1 1.0 20% 4.1 23.0% 3.2 0.94TDM Program 1.0 1.0 0.2 20% 0.8 23.0% 0.6 0.19

Total $70.1 $86.2 $51.7 60% 34.5 $28.4 $6.17Sum

32%

$86.2 $34.5

(4) University Village Draft EIR indicates 55,000 sq ft grocery, 30,000 retail and 175 senior housing could impact Gilman's intersections as well as San Pablo Avenue, COB assumes mitigation will be negotiated as a source of funding to meet the City's portion of local match, leaving the cost share carried by local West Berkeley development unaffected by this and other development's outside City limits.

(3) This is the share of the City of Berkeley funding contributions that would be paid for by development in West Berkeley. The percentage for all Vehicular Improvements is based on an analysis of the West Berkeley Transportation Model's Traffix program. Specifically, 11 intersections were analyzed to determine the proportion of future year 2030 traffic attributed to existing, West Berkeley development, and regional traffic. The non- vehicular improvements share is based on new square footage taken as a percent of total developed square footage in West Berkeley. The remaining percentage is the share of funding the non-West Berkeley developments (General Fund, mitigations funds etc) should contribute to the listed improvement projects, results from subtracting WB development share.

(2) Costs based on PW-TD estimate of likelihood and amount of external funding from regional, State and federal sources, which can provide 50% to 88.5% of required funding depending on the project. Interchange projects are assumed to be Federally supported with 88.5% maximum Federal grant funding yet average support reduced by significant upfront expenses covered locally at lower match rates, as found with the Gilman Roundabouts. Thus only 80% of total project costs areassumedexternally funded while 0% of local Road and Pedestrian projects are assumed externally funded. Assume given prior grant success rates that 20% of Bike and Transit projects are externally funded.

(1) Costs based on WBCMPR (January 2008) adjusted for inflation of 2.31% from January 2008 to December 2009 with Gilman RR Grade Separation updated by Public Works Transportation Division (PW-TD) based on PW-TD design updates in 2009.


Appendix B: WB TSF Proportional Fee Calculation - Table 2: Proposed West Berkeley TSF Per Trip and per Sq FT

West Berkeley Developments ‐ Trip Generation

Type DU Gross Sq Ft Net DU Net Sq FtResidential Residential Corridor 1,722 1,655,703 1,552 1,492,248 407 369

Residential Non- Corridor 99 95,189 99 95,189 41 41 Office 148,566 135,719 210 193 Retail 16,082 825 57 7 Research & Development 1,187,874 1,187,874 1,198 1,198Industrial 737,104 458,559 577 438

TOTAL 3,840,518 3,370,414 2,490 2,246

West Berkeley Transportation Impact Fee ‐ Applied to Primary Use Categories Cost Per Peak Hour Vehicle Trip

Costs with Nexus to WB Development $6,172,560PM Peak Vehicle Trips (A) 2,246Cost per New PM peak hour vehicle trip $2,748

Note: A. 244 trips are assumed to be generated by projects which will not be subject to the fee due to prior development agreements, mitigations, and/or no further permits to be issued

PM Peak Vehicle Trips

Cost per OOT (2010 $M)

Source: WB Project EIR Appendix H - Trip Generation. ITE Trip rates were adjusted to City-specific rates per Census and BATS and pass-by %. Rate is for vehicles per PM peak hour. Residential rate per du (dwelling unit), average du assumed 961.5 sq ft and Non residential basis is per 1,000 sq ft. Existing TDM measures and available transit service is assumed in trip generation rates.

Net PM Peak Vehicle Trips


ITE Land

Use [A]

PM Peak

trips [B]

PM Rate

[C]

Proposed

Fee

Projected

Revenue (D) Ave.

Residential Residential - Corridor 223 369 0.23 632$ per du $1,014,103 695$ Residential - Non-Corridor 221 41 0.44 1,209$ per du $112,678

Office General Office 710 193 1.42 $3.90 per sq ft $530,411 $3.91

Retail $10.76Specialty Retail 814 - 1.86 $5.11 per sq ft $0Retail (New Car Sales) 841 - 2.2 $6.05 per sq ft $0Restaurant (High turnover) 932 8 6.2 $17.04 per sq ft $21,986Restaurant (Low turnover) 931 - 5.4 $14.84 per sq ft $0

Industrial/ManufacturingGeneral Light Industry 110 427 0.96 $2.64 per sq ft $1,173,501 $1.70Warehouse 150 4 0.4 $1.10 per sq ft $10,993Heavy industrial 120 7 0.5 $1.37 per sq ft $19,238

R & D R&D 760 1,198 1.03 $2.83 per sq ft $3,292,398 $2.77

Total 2,247 0.67 $1.83 per sq ft $6,175,308

Notes: 0% (D)

Appendix B: WB TSF Proportional Fee Calculation - Table 3: Proposed WB TSF per Sq Ft & Dwelling Unit and Share of Revenue

(B) Trip generation assumptions as included in the WB Project Draft EIR March, 2010 Technical Appendix H

(A) Source: WB Project EIR Appendix H - Trip Generation. ITE Trip rates were adjusted to City-specific rates per Census and BATS and pass-by %. Rate is for vehicles per PM peak hour. Residential rate per du, average du assumed 961.5 sq ft and Non residential is per 1,000 sq ft. No new TDM measures assumed applied but credit for mode split among existing population applied.

(C) Trip generation rates as included in the WB Project Draft EIR March, 2010 Technical Appendix H

(D) 244 trips projected in the WB Project EIR will result from projects that already have building permits or are subject to a development agreement which included specific mitigation measures for traffic impacts and may not have the proposed fee applied. Thus expected revenue based on the trips in the WB Project EIR could be approximately 10% less than projected here. However project mitigations (to extent included in WB TSF CIP) could provide a separate funding source for projects on the CIP for WB TSF.


Appendix C: West Berkeley Trip Generation Adjustments

Corridor

Non‐

Corridor Corridor

Non‐

Corridor Corridor

Non‐

Corridor Corridor

Non‐

Corridor

Residential 52% 65% 78% 91% 77% 87%

Office/R& D /

Manufacturing/

Industrial NA NA NA NA 82% 95% 82% 95%

Commercial/ Retail NA NA NA NA 86% 99% 86% 99%

Source:

WBCMP Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Report

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_(new_site_map_walk-through)/Level_3_-_General/TDM%20Report%20Draft%20030309.pdf

Land Use Category

Weekday Weekend

Resident Commutes Resident Errands

Commuters &

Shoppers to W.

Berkeley All Trips


Item 10 July 28, 2010

Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]

STAFF REPORT DATE: July 28, 2010 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Alex Amoroso, Principal Planner Claudine Asbagh, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: West Berkeley Project: Review and set public hearing for new zoning and

related language (proposed hearing date September 29, 2010) Recommendation Review the attached language and guidance for the following West Berkeley Project related issues and give staff direction to “set” a public hearing (September 29, 2010):

1. Zoning Amendments and new use designations 2. Master Use Permit (MUP) draft zoning language 3. Research and Development definition and further direction to staff 4. Issues related to the replacement of Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade,

Warehousing and Material Recovery Enterprise (other than R&D). Summary Staff requests that the Commission: Review the attached language for consistency with prior direction Identify policy issues, or language that require additional refining (in anitcipation

of the public hearing) There are four components to this package of materials: Re-use Zoning amendments and New/Changed Uses

All zoning amendments have been compiled into a booklet. Each amendment is described in an explanatory worksheet that precedes the draft language (attachment 1). Staff has also created a tabled index that lists the page number of each amendment within the booklet (attachment 2). Staff has also attached comments submitted by WEIBAC (attachment 3)

Master Use Permit draft zoning language Staff has updated the proposed draft zoning language to reflect input from the MU-R stakeholder group. Changes to the draft language originally presented to the Commission in April of this year are represented as strikeout/underline (see

West Berkeley Project: Zoning Amendments packet July 28, 2010

Page 2 of 4

attachments 1 & 2 for language location). The MUR stakeholder group comments are attached with staff response/recommendation for each (attachment 4). An ongoing concern has been the limited inclusion of MUR and CW in the MUP. Staff has drafted a list of options identified and requests direction from the commissioners (attachment 5).

Research and Development Definition and further direction This includes a synopsis of the Commission direction from the 7/14/10 meeting, and is included in the Discussion section of this report.

Issues related to the replacement/removal of Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, Warehousing and Material Recovery Enterprise (other than R&D)

The project has proposed to draft language that will allow artists into the M/W/W/MRE spaces. Additionally, staff has proposed that two new uses (warehouse-based non-store retail and contractor services) be allowed in M/W/W/MRE space (based on stakeholder meetings held over the last two years). Note that R&D in the context of protected space is discussed in the R&D portion of this report.

Discussion Staff has been engaged in ongoing discussions with the Planning Commission regarding the various aspects of the West Berkeley Project. This report provides draft zoning language based on the direction of the commission in the form of one booklet. It also summarizes the conclusions from the July 14th meeting about R&D and M/W/W/MRE space. Zoning language consistent with the direction on R&D and M/W/W/MRE space will be provided prior to the public hearing in September. Zoning Amendment and Related Language These amendments represent changes to existing practice in various “M” districts throughout West Berkeley. The page number for each amendment is identified in the index (Attachment 2). The amendments include:

Mini-storage prohibition Lot size modifications (from 40,000 down to 20,000 square feet) Elimination of the “story” restriction (leaving FAR and height to regulate building

development) Childcare allowances/modifications Food service spacing requirements modifications “Incidental” and “Ancillary” language clarifications and modifications. Parking Reductions New or Modified Uses

Note on M/W/W/MRE protected space and new/modified uses: The project has proposed to draft language that would allow three non-M/W/W/MRE uses into M/W/W/MRE protected space (not including R&D):


Page 3 of 4

Artisans—Allow artisans to move into and out of protected space, without that space becoming re-designated as protected artist space (as defined in the zoning code).

New Uses—Allow warehouse-based non-store retail and contractor uses In the context of an MUP process—removingM/W/W/MRE space, in exchange

for other concessions made to the West Berkeley community. Zoning language for the above changes will be provided for the September Public Hearing. Language has not been provided in this packet of materials, because the zoning changes are linked to other action/direction by the Commission. It should be noted that in all above instances, when the allowed use leaves the space, the M/W/W/MRE replacement requirements will still apply. The” Ancillary and Incidental” zoning change proposal, commented on in the WEIBAC memo, is one area where staff expects further discussion among the Commission. Master Use Permit The combining of the two existing zoning code sections (noted above) and the proposed modification of standards for an MUP are the focus of this work. The proposed language replaces the existing Master Use Permit Section. While some of the language has been retained, it has been modified in a way that strikeout/underline form would be too confusing to read or work from. The Chapter has been modified to include thresholds and expand the purposes and findings sections to work in tandem. Other components such as vesting limits and applicability standards have been added as per the request of the Commission. Administrative regulations will be used to assist Current Planning staff and the Zoning Adjustments Board implement the MUP. These regulations will be drafted and presented to the Commission subsequent to the adoption of zoning language The MUR stakeholder group met with staff (at the request of the Commission) requested clarifications and proposed a number of modifications to the MUP language. Staff has incorporated proposed changes, where appropriate and left others for consideration by the Commission as part of the MUP language. The MUR stakeholder comments are attached, along with responses from staff. One MUP issue still outstanding and due for discussion is the relationship of CW and/or MUR land as part of an MUP site; how flexible should the regulations be governing these two designations on an MUP site. Additional information will be delivered regarding this subject. Research and Development Definition, and Allowances in “non-protected space” and “protected space” The following information clarifies direction provided by the Commission on 7/14. Zoning language will be drafted based on these assumptions. The definition of R&D:


Page 4 of 4

A Research and Development facility is an establishment of facility (lab, or other “non-office” space) engaged in one or more of the following activities: industrial, biological or scientific research; or product design; development and testing; limited manufacturing necessary for the production of prototypes. Districts: R&D Permitted Allowed in both the MM and MULI districts, but not the M District Protected space: R&D Permitted Allowed in the Warehouse and Wholesale protected space (in the MM and MULI districts, but not in the M District) Levels of discretion for R&D: R&D, as defined, is allowed in the MM and MULI districts with a Zoning Certificate (ZC) up to 20,000 square feet, and with an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) over to 20,000 square feet. Maintaining protections for the M and MRE protected space: limiting protected space transition: Set a date certain/date in time, after which M and MRE cannot be transitioned into W and/or Wh, then into R&D. Conclusion Staff requests that the Commission review and act on the four components of this report (and attachments). The Commission action can be in one or several motions, but should cover the range of zoning changes, new uses, MUP, protected space and R&D issues. Any language and direction approved by the Commission will become part of the packet of zoning language to be presented for Public Hearing (September 29, 2010). Attachments:

1. Zoning Amendments Booklet 2. Zoning Amendments Index 3. WEBAIC comments on Incidental and Ancillary draft language 4. MUR Stakeholder comments with Staff Response 5. MUR/CW considerations within the MUP

Land Use Planning Division Planning and Development Department

Zoning Amendments

Currently Under Review

by the

Planning Commission

Item 10 - Attachment 1 Planning Commission July 28, 1010

Zoning Amendments Currently Under Review by the Planning Commission

Table of Contents

Section 1 – Mini-Storage .......................................................................... 1

Section 2 – Lot Size .................................................................................. 3

Section 3 – Height/Story/F.A.R. .............................................................. 5

Section 4 – Childcare ............................................................................... 7

Section 5 – Food Service ....................................................................... 13

Section 6 – Incidental and Ancillary Space .......................................... 19

Section 7 – Parking Reductions ............................................................ 33

Section 8 – Proposed New Uses and Changes to Existing Uses ....... 39

Section 9 – Chapter 23B.36 – Master Use Permits .............................. 47


West Berkeley Project: Zoning Amendments v. 1/21/10

1 | P a g e

Mini Storage (M) Issue Mini storage takes up a great deal of land area without providing a significant number of jobs or tax revenue for the City. Planning Commission members, as well as City Council, has suggested the use be removed from the list of permitted uses. Proposal 1. Prohibit as a new use and prohibit expansion of existing uses.

Sections of Code to Amend 1. Amend Chapter 23E.72.030 (the use table) to prohibit mini-storage. Zoning Language

Table 23E.72.030

Use and Required Permits

Uses Permits Required to Establish, Expand or Change Use (sq. ft.)

Special Requirements (if any)

Under 20,000

20,000-40,000

More than 40,000

Manufacturing and Wholesale Trade

Construction Products Manufacturing

ZC AUP UP(PH)

Light Manufacturing ZC AZ UP(PH)

Mini-storage Warehouses AUP AUP UP(PH) Changes of Use to Mini-storage warehouse prohibited

Prohibited

Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers

Prohibited

Petroleum refining and products Prohibited

Pharmaceuticals AUP UP(PH) UP(PH)

Primary Production Manufacturing AUP UP(PH) UP(PH)

Semiconductors UP(PH)

Warehouses (other than Mini-storage)

ZC AUP UP(PH)

Wholesale Trade Establishments ZC AUP UP(PH)

23E.72.060 Use Limitations D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Chapter 23C.04, existing Mini-storage Warehouses, whether conforming or lawful non-conforming, may not be expanded, nor may they be rebuilt after destruction.

Item 10 - Attachment 1 Page 1


2 | P a g e

Supporting Policy Statements Land Use Goal 1 and 1A: “Over the economically active area of West Berkeley, provide for a continued economic and land use mix, incorporating manufacturing, other industrial, retail and office/laboratory uses, to benefit Berkeley residents and businesses economically, benefit the City government fiscally, and promotes the varied and interest character of the area.” “Retaining, through planning, zoning and land use policies which shield manufactures from economic and physical incompatibilities with other uses, sufficient land and buildings to maintain the current level of manufacturing employment at a minimum.”

Mini Storage takes up large portions of land yet does not provide significant jobs or tax revenues in return.

Large swaths of land dedicated to occasional use does not promote the “varied character and interest” of West Berkeley.

Mini storage facilities provide a large profit to owners with minimal investment and are able to afford a much higher rent. If the land becomes more desirable for uses other than manufacturing, this could result in higher rents and drive out manufacturers who are unable to afford the higher rates.



1 | P a g e

Lot Size (M, MM) Issue In the M and MM districts, lot sizes must be 40,000 square feet or larger. The 40,000 sq. foot threshold was adopted during a time when the larger, primary manufacturing uses were locating in West Berkeley. Health and safety reasons, in addition to cost of operation, are pushing large-scale, heavy manufacturers to the margins of the region as well as other countries. As a result, West Berkeley has very few of these types of businesses, and will most likely not see any new ones relocating to the area. The manufacturing uses compatible with the West Berkeley Area today are often smaller in scale and would not typically require a lot much larger than 20,000 sq. ft. This minimum lot size would maintain the West Berkeley Plan’s goals and policies while providing incentive for smaller developers and manufacturers to establish themselves in Berkeley. The reduction in minimum lot size will allow for existing large parcels to be divided (i.e. 40,000 sq. ft. lot = two 20,000 sq. ft. lots) and create additional opportunities for reuse. Smaller lot sizes will also provide opportunities for smaller businesses to purchase their land. Proposal 1. Lower minimum allowed lot size from 40,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. Sections of Code to Amend 1. Amend Development Standards Sections listed below to state minimum lot size as

20k Sq. Ft: 1.1. 23E.72.070; and 1.2. 23E.76.070

1

Zoning Language 2

23E.72.070 Development and Performance Standards 3

C. No lot shall may have an area of less than 40,00020,000 square feet. 4

5

23E.76.070 Development and Performance Standards 6

C. No lot shall may have an area of less than 40,00020,000 square feet. 7



2 | P a g e

Supporting Policy Statements

Land Use Goal 4: “Assure that new development in any sector is of a scale and design that is appropriate to its surroundings, while respecting the genuine economic and physical needs of the development.”

A smaller minimum lot size standard would contribute to smaller development projects at an appropriate scale for the surrounding area.

Physical Form Goal 4 and 4.1: “Development in locations where there is a juxtaposition of uses and building scales --particularly when concentrations of residential uses are adjacent to more intense uses – should be sensitive to the character of both the less intense and the more intense uses. This will be particularly important in the Mixed Use/Residential zone and on the "edges" where industrial zones (especially general manufacturing zones) meet zones which permit residential uses.” “Developments in such "edge" locations should seek to minimize--to the greatest degree possible--abrupt changes of building scale.”

Smaller lots allow for smaller buildings, which better allows for the “juxtaposition of uses and building scales.” There are a number of lots greater than 40,000 sq. ft. next to residential areas. Subdividing these lots may help keep adjacent projects at a more reasonable scale for neighborhoods.



1 | P a g e

Height/Story/F.A.R. (M, MM, MU-LI) Issue The story limit in the industrial districts is three, however the maximum height (45 feet) would allow for up to four stories if the floor to ceiling ratio was variable. This restriction has reduced development potential by requiring a variance to create more stories, even when all other aspects of a project aligned with development standards (including maximum height). Although limiting the number of stories potentially moderates intensity of use, a more accurate method for accomplishing this is Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Further research brings to light that the “M” districts did not have an FAR limit until 1999. Now that such a limit has been added, the story limit becomes redundant. Proposal 1. Eliminate story restriction: Allow Height/ FAR to regulate bulk, mass, and intensity of use. Sections of Code to Amend 1. Amend story development standard in each Section:

1.1. 23E.72.070; 1.2. 23E.76.070; and 1.3. 23E.80.070

Zoning Language

M 1 23E.72.070 Development and Performance Standards 2

A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 23B.36, Tthe Floor Area Ratio (FAR) shall not 3 exceed two. 4

B. Except as otherwise provided in Section 23B.36, the height for a main building for any 5 permitted use shall not exceed 45 feet. or three stories. 6

7 MM 8 23E.76.070 Development and Performance Standards 9


B. Except as otherwise provided in Section 23B.36, the height for a main building for any 12 permitted use shall not exceed 45 feet. or three stories. 13 14

MU-LI 15 23E.80.070 Development and Performance Standards 16


B. The height of a main building shall not exceed 45 feet. or three stories.19



2 | P a g e

Supporting Policy Statements Land Use Goal 1: “Over the economically active area of West Berkeley, provide for a continued economic and land use mix, incorporating manufacturing, other industrial, retail and office/laboratory uses, to benefit Berkeley residents and businesses economically, benefit the City government fiscally, and promotes the varied and interest character of the area”.

Removing story restrictions assists in maintaining an economic and land use mix for various businesses types, while still allowing control over mass and bulk.

The removal of the story restriction will allow other permitted uses to move into the area, while maintaining control over building heights. The additional businesses will help West Berkeley diversify and promote a wider range of economic activity. Additionally, varying use types will aid in economic resiliency during downturns.

Land Use Goal 1 D: “Providing space for, and designating appropriate locations for, office, service, and laboratory businesses, particularly growing Berkeley-based businesses which are particularly suited to West Berkeley's physical environment.”

“Providing space for” the variety of business types listed requires flexibility in number of stories, since the floor-to-floor height of a story can very from 8 -9 feet to 15-20 feet.

Land Use Goal 4: “Assure that new development in any sector is of a scale and design that is appropriate to its surroundings, while respecting the genuine economic and physical needs of the development.” Economic Development Goal 4 and Policy 4A: “Continue to support the growth of advanced technology manufacturing (such as biotechnology) and advanced technology services (such as research laboratories) in appropriate locations, under appropriate environmental safeguards.” “Provide assistance to advanced technology firms to help them establish or expand businesses in appropriate locations.”

“Genuine economic and physical needs” dictates a certain number of stories depending on the use. The development will still be subject to the underlying zoning for uses, maximum FAR, maximum height, and all other regulations, but be able to adjust number of stories as needed by different types of uses.

Physical Form Urban Design Goal 1.8: “Develop incentives to encourage new construction to be 2-4 stories in height (and to incorporate residential and office uses above the ground floor) along these corridors, especially at nodes”.

This policy specifically calls for taller buildings. Multiple stories encourage mixed-use buildings.



1 | P a g e

Childcare (MU-LI, MU-R)

Issue MU-LI does not permit new childcare facilities, even though existing facilities are classified as 'protected uses' and the West Berkeley Area Plan recommended that childcare uses be permitted in this area. ZAB has granted variances, but a Use Permit (PH) would be a more reasonable and streamlined process that responds to the recommendations of the WB Area Plan. Proposal 1. Allow incidental childcare in MU-R, MU-LI with Zoning Certificate when childcare is for

employees only;

2. Allow incidental childcare in MU-R, MU-LI with AUP and 300’ noticing requirement when childcare is for employees and non-employees;

3. Allow stand alone childcare in MU-LI with UP (PH) (adopt MU-R standards).

Sections of Code to Amend 1. Amend Chapters 23E.80.030 & 23E.84.030 (Incidental Uses) to allow incidental childcare

with ZC if for employees only;

2. Amend Chapters 23E.80.030 & 23E.84.030 (Incidental Uses) to allow incidental childcare with AUP and 300’ noticing requirement when childcare is for employees and non-employees;

3. Change use table in 23E.80.030 to allow childcare with UP (PH) by duplicating MU-R language and findings (stand alone; see MU-R use table 23E.84.030 and findings 23E.84.090.H);

4. Create new language in both 23E.80.090 and 23E.84.090 that childcare meets State requirements.

Background/Additional Information From Definitions 23F.04.01

“Child Care Center or Facility: An establishment providing day care for children, other than a family day care home, which is licensed by the State of California Department of Social Services.” “Family Day Care Home: An establishment providing day care for fourteen (14) or fewer children in a dwelling unit as licensed by the State of California Department of Social Services.



2 | P a g e

Small Family Day Care Home: The use of a dwelling, as described above, for eight (8) or fewer children, including children who reside at the home. Large Family Day Care Home: The use of a dwelling, as described above, for nine (9) to fourteen (14) children, including children who reside at the home.”

Districts with only one designation of Child Care:

Table 23E.xx.0301 (C-1, C-N, C-E, C-NS, C-SA, C-T, C-SO)

Use Classification Special Requirements (if any)

Uses Permitted in Residential Districts

Child Care Centers UP(PH)

Districts with only multiple designations of Child Care:

Table 23E.64.030 (C-W)1

Use Classification Special Requirements

Residential and Related Uses

Child Care; Family Day Care

Small Family Day Care Homes of 8 or fewer children ZC

Large Family Day Care Homes of 9 to 14 children AUP

Child Care Centers UP(PH)

Table 23E.84.030 (MU-R)1



Child Care Centers UP(PH) Subject to the findings in Section 23E.84.090.H


Small Family Day Care Homes of 8 or fewer children ZC

Large Family Day Care Homes of 9 to 14 children AUP Subject to the findings in Section 23E.84.090.H

From Findings Section: 23E.84.090

H. In order to approve a Use Permit for the establishment or expansion of a school, large family day care, child care center, or recreational or educational facility to be used by children, the Zoning Officer or Board must make all of the following findings:

1. Development of the school, child care center, large family day care or recreational facility to be used by children is not, in the particular circumstances of the project, incompatible with adjacent and nearby uses, including industrial uses and uses located outside of the District;

1 (From Use Tables of Non-Residential Districts)



3 | P a g e

2. An appropriate risk analysis or risk assessment, as defined by the City, has been made and has shown that there is not significant risk to children in the use from other activities near the site;

3. The applicants have made adequate provisions to insure that all parents of students or children in the school, child care center, large family day care or recreational facility to be used by children will be notified in writing (on a form approved by the City) that the school is in the West Berkeley Plan MU-R District, and that light manufacturing is a permitted activity in the District and that Primary Production Manufacturing or Construction Products Manufacturing may be permitted uses in adjacent districts, including a requirement that each parent will indicate that they have read and understood this information by means of a written statement returned to the school or child care center and available for review.

Zoning Language MU-LI: 23E.80.030 (Use Table)

Table 23E.80.030 (MU-LI)


Uses Incidental to a Permitted Use

Child Care Centers ZC Childcare for employees only

AUP When providing childcare for non-employees; Subject to additional noticing requirements and findings in Section 23E.80.090.J


Childcare Centers UP(PH)Prohibited Subject to the findings in Section 23E.80.090.J


Small Family Day Care Homes of 8 or fewer children

ZC

Large Family Day Care Homes of 9 to 14 children

AUP Subject to the findings in Section 23E.80.090.J

MU-LI: 23E.80.090 (Findings) J. In order to approve a Use Permit for the establishment or expansion of a child care

center, or recreational or educational facility to be used by children, the Zoning Officer or Board must make all of the following findings:

1. Development of the school, child care center, large family day care or recreational facility to be used by children is not, in the particular circumstances of the project, incompatible with adjacent and nearby uses, including industrial uses;



4 | P a g e


3. The applicants have made adequate provisions to insure that all parents of students or children in the school, child care center, large family day care or recreational facility to be used by children will be notified in writing (on a form approved by the City) that the school is in the West Berkeley Plan MU-LI District, and that light manufacturing is a permitted activity in the District and that Primary Production Manufacturing or Construction Products Manufacturing may be permitted uses in adjacent districts, including a requirement that each parent will indicate that they have read and understood this information by means of a written statement returned to the school or child care center and available for review.

MU-R: 23E.84.030 (Use Table)

Table 23E.84.030 (MU-R)



Child Care Centers ZC Childcare for employees only

AUP When providing childcare for non-employees; Subject to additional noticing requirements and findings in Section 23E.84.090.H

MU-R: 23E.84.090 (Findings) H. In order to approve a Use Permit for the establishment or expansion of a school, large

family day care, child care center, or recreational or educational facility to be used by children, the Zoning Officer or Board must make all of the following findings:

1. Development of the school, child care center, large family day care or recreational facility to be used by children is not, in the particular circumstances of the project, incompatible with adjacent and nearby uses, including industrial uses and uses located outside of the District;


3. The applicants have made adequate provisions to insure that all parents of students or children in the school, child care center, large family day care or recreational facility to be used by children will be notified in writing (on a form approved by the City) that the school is in the West Berkeley Plan MU-R District, and that light manufacturing is a permitted activity in the District and that Primary Production Manufacturing or Construction Products Manufacturing may be permitted uses in adjacent districts, including a requirement that each



5 | P a g e

parent will indicate that they have read and understood this information by means of a written statement returned to the school or child care center and available for review.



6 | P a g e

Supporting Goals and Policies from the West Berkeley Area Plan Economic Development Goal 1 and 1C: “Take all reasonable actions to maintain and promote manufacturing and other industrial sectors in Berkeley.” “To the greatest extent possible, focus business assistance efforts, including efforts to retain and attract new companies, on manufacturers which will provide jobs and/or other benefits for Berkeley.”

Allowing childcare in the MU-LI district will provide an opportunity for both new and existing businesses to create a desirable work environment for their employees.

Economic Development Goal 6: “Promote opportunities for business ownership by the economically disadvantaged-- non-Whites, women, and other economically disadvantaged people.”

Reducing barriers to establishment of daycare facilities will aid this goal as the operation of childcare businesses is accessible to the economically disadvantaged and those without higher education.

Housing and Social Services Goal 2 “Maintain the maximum level of social service provision in West Berkeley that City resources will permit, to support the policy of maintaining diversity in West Berkeley.”

Childcare is a vital social service, regardless of whether it is subsidized by the city. Minimizing the financial barriers in establishing childcare will increase the number of establishments, which in turn will help maintain affordability.

Physical Form Urban Design Goal 2: “Use the interrelationship between the urban design and transportation goals to improve accessibility between jobs, homes, commercial, recreation and educational centers to minimize dependence on the automobile.” (Also see goals in Transportation Element.)

Allowing childcare close to residential areas and at places of employment will reduce the amount of driving required by parents. In some instances, parents might be able to walk their children to daycare. By allowing on-site employee childcare, employees can bring their child with them on their commute, reducing trips and driving time.



1 | P a g e

Food Service (Part 1 of 2) (MU-R, MU-LI) Issue Current Zoning Ordinance requires that a restaurant: Not be closer than 750 ft. to other food service establishments; Draw clientele from Berkeley and not from the region; and That a majority of food served be made on site.

Three issues relate to the practicality and viability of restaurants in WB:

Distance requirement between restaurants is an artificial control that does not determine the viability of restaurants and in fact limits them from opening in potentially appropriate and available sites.

Restaurants draw clientele from wherever they arrive. Policing a regulation that limits clientele is not feasible. Determining how a restaurant attracts regionally as well as locally is not related to zoning, size or type of food; it is a personal choice that cannot be regulated through zoning and is not enforceable.

The “majority of food served, made on site” rule can be measured, though it seems an unnecessary control over restaurant use in a manufacturing district; the rule blurs the lines between the types of uses in a difficult to measure manner and is not feasible to enforce.

Proposal 1. Remove following requirements from restaurant findings:

1.1. 750 ft. spacing requirement; and 1.2. language specifying a “primarily regional client [base];”

2. Change permit level requirements:

2.1. Restaurants that satisfy “food made on site” requirement allowed with AUP; 2.2. Restaurants that do not satisfy “food made on site” requirement allowed with

UP(PH) Sections of Code to Amend 1. Amend Findings and Purposes:

1.1. Eliminate language related to:

1.1.1. spacing requirements in 23E.80.090.F;

1.1.2. regional clientele requirement in 23E.84.020.J; and

1.1.3. regional clientele and spacing from 23E.84.090.F

2. Change Use Tables in:



2 | P a g e

2.1. 23E.80.030 to:

2.1.1. allow Food Service with AUP if made on site requirement is met; and

2.1.2. allow Food Service with UP(PH) if food not primarily made on site

2.2. 23E.84.030 to:

2.2.1. allow Food Service with AUP if made on site requirement is met; and

2.2.2. allow Food Service with UP(PH) if food not primarily made on site

Zoning Language MU-LI 23E.80.030 (Use Table)

Table 23E.80.030


Uses Permits Required to Establish, Expand, or Change use by Floor

Area (sq. ft.)*


Under 20,000

20,000- 30,000

More than 30,000

Food and Alcohol Service, Lodging and Entertainment

Food Service Establishments UP Subject to parking requirements; see Section 23E.80.080.

Carry Out Food Service

UP(PH)

Subject to Section 23E.80.090.F

AUP if less than 5000 sq. ft. Substantial proportion of the food service use must consist of goods made on site

Quick Service Restaurants

UP(PH)

AUP if less than 5000 sq. ft. Substantial proportion of the food service use must consist of goods made on site

Full Service Restaurants

UP(PH) AUP

F. In order to approve a Use Permit to establish or expand a Food Service Establishment, the Zoning Officer or Board must find that the food service use is primarily designed to serve workers in West Berkeley and not to attract a citywide or regional clientele and either:

1. The food service use is not within 750 feet of a property containing another food service use; or



3 | P a g e

2. A substantial proportion of the food service use will consist of sale of goods made on site; and

3e. Establishment establishment of the food service use, given its size, location, physical appearance and other relevant characteristics, will not have a significant detrimental impact on the industrial character of the area.



4 | P a g e

Economic Development Goal 3: “Improve the level of neighborhood serving retail in West Berkeley.” Due to the difficulty in proving an establishment “designed to serve workers in West

Berkeley and not to attract a citywide or regional clientele and either” and the spacing requirement, there are very few food service establishments in west Berkeley. The purpose in creating neighborhood serving retail is to create vibrant streets that allow residents to walk to most locations.

Further, restaurants typically require a broad-based clientele to remain viable and cannot survive based on immediately adjacent residents and workers alone.

Physical Form Urban Design Goal 2: “Use the interrelationship between the urban design and transportation goals to improve accessibility between jobs, homes, commercial, recreation and educational centers to minimize dependence on the automobile. (Also see goals in Transportation Element.)” Allowing food service establishments closer to places of employment and residences

would reduce the number of auto trips people that live and work in the area would need to make for dining options. West Berkeley is a tightly knit set of zoning districts with businesses, residences and amenities in immediate proximity. This proximity makes for a great opportunity to reduce trip generation by allowing for a good mix of local serving uses, such as restaurants.



5 | P a g e

Food Service (part 2 of 2) (M, MM) Proposal Allow Quick Serve and Carry Out food service as Incidental Uses with AUP (all food service is currently prohibited in M and MM). Background/Additional Information The zoning ordinance has two major classifications of uses that deal with the sale of food: Food Products Store and Food Service Establishment. A food products store is typically a mini-mart, corner grocer, or larger grocery store. It does not include restaurants which the Zoning Ordinance calls “Food Service Establishments.” Definitions below are taken from the Zoning Ordinance:

Food Products Store: A retail products store selling foods primarily intended to be taken to another location to be prepared and consumed. These include the following, but do not include Food Service Establishments.

Food Products Store, General: An establishment, selling a range of foods including fresh, frozen or canned meats, fish and poultry, fruits and vegetables, bread and/or grain products and dairy products, including, but not limited to, grocery stores, markets, or supermarkets; or produce stores, cheese, uncooked meat/butcher shops and fish markets. Food Products Store, Specialized: An establishment, other than a Food Products Store, General, selling a limited range of foods, other than fresh produce, meats, cheese or fish. This includes, but is not limited to, stores (without food service) selling cooked or sandwich meats, fresh pasta, spices and herbs, coffees/teas and candies/confectioneries.

A Food Service Establishment is defined as follows: Food Service Establishment: An establishment which in whole or in part prepares food or beverages for immediate consumption on or off the premises. The categories of Food Service Establishment are:

Carry Out Food Store: A store which serves food or non-alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption not on the premises, but usually in the vicinity of the store. A Carry Out Food Store is usually characterized as an establishment which: serves food altered in texture and/or temperature on a customer-demand basis; puts such food in non-sealed packages or edible containers; requires payment for such food prior to consumption; and provides no seating or other physical accommodations for on-premises dining. Examples of this type of facility include, but are not limited to, delicatessens and other stores without seating which sell doughnuts, croissants, ice cream, frozen yogurt, cookies, whole pizzas and sandwiches. A Bakery or Food Products Store is not considered a Carry Out Food Store. Quick Service Restaurant: An establishment which serves food or beverages for immediate consumption either on the premises, or to be taken out for consumption



6 | P a g e

elsewhere. A Quick Service Restaurant is usually characterized as an establishment in which food is cooked on a customer-demand basis, payment is required prior to consumption, and seating or other physical accommodations for on-premises customer dining, with limited or no table service (no waiters or waitresses), is provided. Examples of this type of facility may include, but are not limited to, establishments selling primarily hamburgers or other hot or cold sandwiches, hot dogs, tacos and burritos, pizza slices, fried chicken or fish and chips. Full Service Restaurant: An establishment which serves food or beverages for immediate consumption primarily on the premises, with only a minor portion, if any, of the food being taken out of the establishment. A Full Service Restaurant is characterized as an establishment in which food is cooked or prepared on the premises on a customer-demand basis, which requires payment after consumption, and provides seating and tables for on-premises customer dining with table service (waiters or waitresses).

The use tables for the M and MM zoning districts allows “food for immediate consumption” with an AUP if less than 20,000 square feet and incidental to a permitted use.


Food or Beverage for Immediate Consumption

AUP Prohibited Prohibited

There is no separate definition of “Food or Beverage for Immediate Consumption,” rather, it constitutes part of the definition for “Food Service Establishment.”

“Food Service Establishment: An establishment which in whole or in part prepares food or beverages for immediate consumption on or off the premises.”

The common practice for Zoning Ordinances is to place the use title, not the definition, within the use table. As such, we are suggesting that the code be modified (in all West Berkeley Districts as appropriate) as follows:


Food or Beverage for Immediate ConsumptionFood Service Establishment




1 | P a g e

Incidental and Ancillary Space (Definitions) Issue Ambiguity in the Zoning Ordinance creates confusion when a business has more than one basic component. The code interchanges “Incidental” and “Ancillary” uses and provides no definition for the latter term. Staff has created a new definition for ancillary and amended the definition of incidental for greater clarity. Additionally, staff has amended sections of the ordinance that rely heavily on the terminology and removed any conflicting and/or confusing langauge. Proposal 1. Define/refine definition of “Accessory”, “Incidental” and “Ancillary” Uses.

2. Clarify ordinance to reflect new definitions.

Sections of Ordinance to Amend 1. Amend 23F (definitions):

1.1. Add definition for “Ancillary” and refine the definitions of “Accessory” and “Incidental;”

2. Amend locations in ordinance to consistently apply the terms “Ancillary” and “Incidental”

Supporting Goals and Policies from the West Berkeley Area Plan Land Use G5 Clarify and rationalize the development review process, so that clearer guidance is given to applicants and people affected by projects, and so that decisions on projects may occur more rapidly, while providing appropriate opportunities for citizen input. Defining terms will aid in clarification and rationalization of projects, and speed the processing of permits. The cleanup of Section 23E.80.045 has removed redundant language only. There has been no change that would alter the protections that .045 provides to M/W/W/MRE uses.



2 | P a g e

Zoning Language Staff recommends the following amendments to definitions in Section 23F.04.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 23F.04.010 Definitions

Accessory Use: See Use, Accessory Incidental Use: See Use, Incidental. Use: The purpose, for which land or premises or a building thereon is designed, arranged or intended or for which it is or may be occupied or maintained.

Accessory Use: A use that is of the same nature as or complementary incidental and accessory to the principal use of a lot or a building located on the same lot, and that is not independent of the principal use.

Ancillary Use: A use that is both dependent on and commonly associated with the principal permitted use of a lot and/or building and that does not result in different or greater impacts than the principal use. Incidental Use: A secondary use of a lot and/or building that is secondary to the principal permitted use, but that by nature could be independent. An Incidental Use shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the floor area of the primary use, and if it consists of the commercial sales of a different line of products or services than the primary use, such incidental use may not generate gross receipts in excess of thirty-three percent (33%) of the gross receipts generated by the primary Use.

Temporary Use: A use of a building, property or land area, that is limited in duration of time, does not permanently alter the character or physical facilities of the premises or property and is in keeping with the purposes listed in the District where it is located.

Material Recovery Enterprise: A business that diverts discarded materials from a number of waste streams. including but not limited to the Transfer Station, drop-off, pick-up and curbside collection. Such facilities must clean, sort, repair and/or process these materials and offer them for reuse and/or recycling through wholesale and/or retail sales, including bulk sales. The retail component of these facilities is limited to the sale of items recovered from the waste stream and is not considered “incidental retail.” These facilities may include a retail component that is limited to the sale of items recovered from the waste stream. No new items may be offered for sale at these facilities. Material Recovery Enterprises do not include flea markets, automobile wrecking establishments, manufacturer’s outlet stores (factory second stores), consignment shops, second-hand stores, antique stores or any store which offers only used furniture, clothing and/or household items



3 | P a g e

MANUFACTURING (M) DISTRICT 1

Table 23E.72.030


Uses Permits Required to Establish, Expand

or Change Use (sq. ft.)


Under 20,000

20,000- 40,000

More than 40,000


Amusement Devices Prohibited


AUP Prohibited

Live Entertainment Prohibited

Retail Sales of goods manufactured on site

AUP Prohibited See limitations in Section 23E.72.060.E

Retail Sales of goods distributed, but not manufactured, on site

Prohibited

Retail Sales; Personal/Household Services; Food and Alcohol Service, Lodging, Entertainment and Office Uses

Retail activity must be clearly ancillary. Signs for ancillary retail uses shall be of such a size and character as to clearly indicate that the retail use is the ancillary, not the primary, use of the site. Retail floor area not to exceed the lesser of 10% of total usable floor area exclusive of parking, or 1,500 sq. ft. There shall be no outdoor sales area or food service seating in an ancillary retail use.

All Office Uses (other than offices ancillary to a permitted use)

Prohibited

All Other Retail Sales Uses (other than Incidental Retail Sales of goods manufactured on site), and Personal and Household Services

Prohibited

Ancillary Sales of Goods Manufactured on Site

AUP Prohibited

Building Materials and Garden Supplies Retail Sales

Prohibited

Business Support Services

Prohibited



4 | P a g e

23E.72.060 Use Limitations 2 3 E. Incidental Retail Sales shall meet the following: 4

1. Signs for Incidental Retail Sales use shall be of such a size and character as to clearly 5 indicate that the retail use is not the Primary Use of the site; 6

2. Retail Sales floor area shall not exceed 10% of total Gross Floor Area; and 7 3. No outdoor sales or food service is allowed. 8

9

Cafeterias for Employees only

ZC Prohibited

Entertainment uses, live entertainment, theaters (motion picture and other), dance and rehearsal studios

Prohibited

Hotels and Motels Prohibited

Industrial and Mining Products

AUP Prohibited

Restaurants and Other Food and Alcohol Service Uses

Prohibited

Sale of Goods distributed, but not manufactured, on site

Prohibited



5 | P a g e

MIXED MANUFACTURING (MM) DISTRICT 1

Table 23E.76.030




Under 20,000

20,000- 40,000 More than

40,000


Amusement Devices

Prohibited



Live Entertainment

Prohibited


Up to 1,500 sq.

ft.

1,501-3,000 sq. ft.

Over 3,000 sq.

ft.

See limitations in Section 23E.76.060.C

AUP UP Prohibited

Retail Sales; Personal and Household Services; Food and Alcohol Service, Lodging, Entertainment and Office Uses

All Other Retail UsesSales (other than Incidental Retail Sales of goods manufactured on site), and Personal and Household Services

Prohibited

Ancillary Sales of Goods Manufactured on Site

up to 1,499 sq. ft. AUP See limitations in Section .C

1,500-2,999 sq. ft. UP

3,000+ sq. ft. Prohibited

Ancillary Sales of Other Goods

Prohibited Including goods distributed, but not



6 | P a g e

1 23E.76.060 2

B. Incidental Retail Sales shall meet the following: 3 1. Signs for Incidental Retail Sales use shall be of such a size and character as to clearly 4

indicate that the retail use is not the Primary Use of the site; 5 2. Retail Sales floor area shall not exceed 10% of total Gross Floor Area; and 6 3. No outdoor sales or food service is allowed. 7

8

9 23E.76.090.F 10

F. In order to approve a Use Permit to allow the creation of an ancillary retail space greater than 11

1,500 square feet, but less than 3,000 square feet under Section 23E.76.030.C, the Board must 12

make all of the following findings: 13

1. The ancillary retail space does not occupy more than 10% of the total floor area 14

(exclusive of indoor parking) occupied by the manufacturing use; 15

2. The size of the ancillary use is necessary for the operation of the manufacturing 16

use; 17

3. The ancillary use as proposed will not cause substantial change in the primarily 18

manufacturing and industrial character and appearance of the use, block and area; 19

and 20 4. The ancillary use will not disrupt parking or loading space necessary for manufacturing at 21

the site or elsewhere, and will not disrupt truck, forklift and other movements necessary to 22

manufacturing operations at the site or elsewhere. 23



7 | P a g e

MIXED USE - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (MU-LI) DISTRICT 1

Table 23E.80.030


Uses Permits Required to Establish, Expand, or Change use by Floor Area

(sq. ft.)*


Under 20,000

20,000- 30,000More than

30,000


Amusement Devices AUP



Live Entertainment and/or amplified music

UP(PH)


Up to 1,500 sq. ft.

1,501-3,000 sq. ft.

Over 3,000 sq.

ft.

See limitations in Section 23E.80.060.D

AUP UP Prohibited

Storage, Wholesale Trade, or permitted Manufacturing use as an incidental use

ZC

Retail Sales, Personal and Household Services

All Retail Sales (other than Incidental Retail of goods manufactured on site), and Personal and Household Services

Prohibited

Ancillary Sales of Goods

Manufactured on Site AUP under 1,500 sq.ft.; UP(PH) 1,500-3,000 sq.ft.;

Prohibited more than 3,000 sq.ft.

See additional limitations on ancillary retail use in Section 23E.80.030.D

Distributed on Site Prohibited Not manufactured on site

2

23E.80.030 3

B. Any use which is incidental to the primary use of a building or property shall be subject to the 4 permit requirements identified in the Uses Incidental to a Permitted Use heading under Table 5 23E.80.030; provided, that for storage, wholesale, and specified manufacturing, uses are 6 allowed with a Zoning Certificate in this District, no additional permits are required. 7 Any use not listed that is compatible with the purposes of the MU-LI District shall be permitted 8 subject to securing an Administrative Use Permit. Any use that is not compatible with the 9 purposes of the MU-LI District shall be prohibited. 10



8 | P a g e

C. The initial establishment or change of use of floor area of an existing non-residential building, or 1 portion of building, shall be subject to the permit requirements as listed in the legend of Table 2 23E.80.030. 3

4 D. Retail activity must be clearly ancillary to the principal activity of the property and shall meet all 5

of the following requirements: 6 1. Signs for ancillary retail uses shall be of such a size and character as to clearly indicate 7

that the retail use is the ancillary, not the primary, use of the site; 8 2. Retail floor area shall not exceed 1,500 square feet of floor area, unless a Use Permit 9

for an ancillary retail area of up to 3,000 square feet is approved pursuant to Section 10 23E.80.090.I; provided, that in no event may retail floor area exceed 10% of total usable 11 floor area, exclusive of any indoor parking area; 12

3. There shall be no outdoor sales area or food service seating in an ancillary retail use. 13 E.D. Live/Work uses may only be established pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 14

23E.80.090.G and shall meet the following requirements: 15 1. The specific activity a live/work resident will engage in must be stated; 16 2. At least one occupant must be engaged in an art or craft listed in the definition of 17

Art/Craft Studio in Sub-title F or which requires space not typically available in a 18 conventional residential setting; 19

3. The total floor area of a Live/Work Unit shall be at least 1,000 square feet. 20 F.E. An Outdoor Recreation Sub-zone may be designated by the Council, upon 21

recommendation of the Commission. In an Outdoor Recreation Sub-zone, parks and outdoor 22 recreational uses may be permitted, subject to obtaining a Use Permit. 23

1. Properties designated as an Outdoor Recreation Sub-zone shall include all of the 24 following: 25

a. Be designated specifically for outdoor recreational use in the West Berkeley 26 Plan; 27

b. Be owned or under acquisition by a public agency which is subject to this 28 Ordinance; 29

c. Be at least five contiguous acres in area; 30 d. Not be primarily used for a conforming use as designated in the West Berkeley 31

Plan; and 32 e. Be at least 1,000 feet from any other Outdoor Recreation Sub-zone. 33

2. The initial designation of an Outdoor Recreation Sub-zone shall expire five years from 34 the designation date. In order to permit outdoor recreational uses after that date, the 35 Council must renew the Outdoor Recreation Sub-zone designation. (Ord. 7125-NS § 1, 36 2009; Ord. 6923-NS § 1 (part), 2006: Ord. 6738-NS § 1 (part), 2003: Ord. 6688-NS § 1, 37 2002: Ord. 6671-NS § 7, 2001: Ord. 6644-NS § 3, 2001: Ord. 6509-NS § 2 (part), 1999; 38 Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999) 39

40 41



9 | P a g e

MIXED USE – LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (MU-LI) DISTRICT 1 2 23E.80.045 Special Provisions: Changes of Use/Removal of Floor Area Used for Material 3 Recovery Enterprise, Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade or Warehousing 4

A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 23E.80.030, no floor area in a building in which at 5 least 33% of the floor area is used for any aspect of a Material Recovery Enterprise, manufacturing, 6 warehousing or wholesale trade may be changed to uses other than Material Recovery Enterprise, 7 manufacturing, warehousing or wholesale trade without a Use Permit, except as otherwise provided in 8 this section: 9

1. That floor area which has been used for Material Recovery Enterprise, manufacturing, 10 warehousing or wholesale trade may be changed to other uses which are an integral part of a Material 11 Recovery Enterprise, manufacturing, warehousing or wholesale trade establishment without a Use 12 Permit; provided, that such space does not exceed 25% of the total floor area of the establishment; or 13

2. As otherwise provided in this section. 14 B. Except as provided herein and in Paragraphs E D and H F of this section, no more than 25% of 15

the space used for Material Recovery Enterprise (including its retail component), manufacturing, 16 warehousing or wholesale trade in a building shall be removed and/or changed to another use, subject 17 to a Use Permit and the finding under Section 23E.80.090.D. 18

C. The Zoning Officer may issue an Administrative Use Permit to change the use of less than 19 20,000 square feet of floor area as long as that area is less than 25% of the space used for . Where the 20 affected floor area is twenty thousand square feet or more or more than 25% of the space used for 21 Material Recovery Enterprise, (including its retail component), manufacturing, warehousing, or 22 wholesale trade, any such change of use shall require a Use Permit from the Board.. 23

D. If an ancillary use or uses is established pursuant to Paragraphs K and L of this section, no 24 more than 33% of the space used for manufacturing, warehousing, or wholesale trade, including the 25 ancillary uses, may be removed and/or changed to another use except pursuant to Section 26 23E.80.090.D. 27

E.D. On a property consisting of a lot (or group of abutting and confronting lots) under one 28 ownership containing more than one building, more than 25% of the use of a particular building or 29 portion of building may be changed from Material Recovery Enterprise, manufacturing, warehousing, or 30 wholesale trade as defined below, provided that for the property as a whole no more than a cumulative 31 total of 25% of the floor area used for Material Recovery Enterprise, manufacturing, wholesale trade or 32 warehousing is changed to another use. 33

F. For purposes of this section, removal of all or part of the floor area of a building which includes a 34 portion or portions of the building used for Material Recovery Enterprise, manufacturing, wholesale 35 trade or warehousing use shall be subject to the same requirements as a change of use, provided that 36 removal of building area for the purpose of providing required parking for a Material Recovery 37 Enterprise, manufacturing, wholesale trade or warehousing use shall not be considered to be a change 38 of use. However, such building alterations shall be subject to all other requirements of the Chapter. 39

G.E. As used in this section, space used for Material Recovery Enterprise,manufacturing, 40 warehousing or wholesale trade means space which is being used, or was previously used for the 41 manufacture, assembly, processing, repair, testing (including prototype manufacturing), storage, 42 display (other than in retail stores) or distribution of goods, unless the manufacturing, wholesale trade, 43 or warehousing use is or was demonstrably ancillary to another use. For the purposes of this section, 44 any retail space used in a Material Recovery Enterprise shall be included. Such space shall not include 45 space which is being used, or was previously used, for offices, conference and meeting space, data 46 processing and information systems, or retail display and sale of goods (with the exception of retail 47 space in Material Recovery Enterprises) even if such space is within a building primarily used for 48 manufacturing, warehousing or wholesale trade. For purposes of this section, use of the space shall be 49 the use as of January 1, 1996 (or if vacant on that date, the most recent previous use). 50



10 | P a g e

H.F. Pursuant to the amendment to the West Berkeley Plan concerning 2929 Seventh Street, also 1 known as the Langendorf Building, space used or last previously used for manufacturing, warehousing 2 or wholesale trade in that building may be changed to other permitted uses provided that not less than 3 30,000 square feet of floor area is maintained for manufacturing, warehousing or wholesale trade uses. 4 Retail Sales, Office Uses and Food and Alcohol Service Uses otherwise prohibited in this District, but 5 permitted in the C-W District, may be permitted at this property, with a Use Permit, provided that the 6 total floor area of such uses on the property in both this District and the C-W District does not exceed 7 10,000 square feet. 8

I. When determining the amount of the floor area which may be changed in use, the full floor area 9 of the building used for Material Recovery Enterprise (including any retail floor area component), 10 manufacturing, wholesale trade and/or warehousing shall be considered, regardless of any Use Permits 11 simultaneously granted for conversion of the building. 12

J.H. The limitations of this section on changes of use shall be cumulative. Except as provided in 13 Paragraphs B, D, E and H of this section, at no time may the total amount of use changed from Material 14 Recovery Enterprise, manufacturing, warehousing or wholesale trade exceed 25% of the amount of 15 Material Recovery Enterprise, manufacturing, warehousing or wholesale trade space which existed in a 16 building on the date specified in Paragraph G of this section. 17

K. For purposes of this section ancillary uses are those used solely or principally for activities which 18 are directly related to the Material Recovery Enterprise, manufacturing, warehousing or wholesale trade 19 activity which is the primary activity of the establishment, such as offices, conference and meeting 20 space, data processing and information systems, display of goods, or other appropriate uses as 21 determined by the Zoning Officer. Ancillary uses under this section do not include retail space, which 22 may be permitted only as set forth in Table 23E.80.030. The retail component of Material Recovery 23 Enterprise uses however is not considered ancillary, but is an integral part of the use. Therefore, 24 Section 23E.80.030.D does not apply to Material Recovery Enterprise uses. 25

L.I Ancillary laboratory uses under this section need not be contiguous with other portions of the 26 establishment they are ancillary to, provided that all portions of that establishment are within the West 27 Berkeley Plan area and that a Use Permit is obtained to establish a non-contiguous ancillary use. This 28 Section shall not create an authorization to establish a laboratory use in a location where the laboratory 29 use would not otherwise be permitted as a primary use. (Ord. 7125-NS § 5, 2009; Ord. 6509-NS § 3 30 (part), 1999; Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999) 31

32

23E.80.060 Use Limitations 33 A. Any use, other than an office use, which is incidental to the primary use of a building or property 34

shall be subject to the permit requirements identified in the Uses Incidental to a Permitted Use 35

heading, in Table 23E.80.030 and the limitations set forth in Section 23E.80.030.D. 36

B. Any activity or use which occurs outside of a building shall be subject to the permit requirements 37

identified in the Parking, Outdoor and Exterior Window Uses heading in Table 23E.80.030. 38

C. Incidental Retail Sales shall meet the following: 39 1. Signs for Incidental Retail Sales use shall be of such a size and character as to clearly 40

indicate that the retail use is not the Primary Use of the site; 41 2. Retail Sales floor area shall not exceed 10% of total Gross Floor Area; and 42 3. No outdoor sales or food service is allowed. 43

44

C.D. Alcoholic Beverage Sales or Service Uses and Live/Work Uses shall be subject to the 45

requirements of Chapters 23E.16 and 23E.20 in addition to the requirements of this District. 46



11 | P a g e

D.E. No manufacturing or wholesale trade use may be established or expanded within 150 1

feet of a residential use in an R-District or in the MU-R District except as set forth herein: 2

1. If the use would require a Zoning Certificate in other locations of the MU-LI District, an 3

Administrative Use Permit is required; 4

2. If the use would require an Administrative Use Permit in other locations of the MU-LI 5

District, a Use Permit is required. 6

E.F. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing and Commercial Physical or Biological Laboratories 7

using Class 2 Organisms are prohibited within 500 feet of a Residential or Mixed Use-8

Residential District. 9

F.G. For purposes of the Noise Ordinance, Chapter 13.40, the MU-LI District shall be 10

considered an Industry District. 11

G.H. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance, an existing use may be modified 12

or intensified without a Use Permit if no provision of this chapter requires a Use Permit and if the 13

Zoning Officer determines that the modification or intensification of the use can reasonably be 14

expected not to increase any impact regulated under environmental performance standards. 15

(Ord. 6688-NS § 2 (part), 2002; Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999) 16

17 18

23E.80.090 Findings 19

I. In order to approve a Use Permit under Section 23E.80.030.D to allow creation of an ancillary 20 retail space greater than 1,500 square feet, but less than 3,000 square feet, the Zoning Officer or Board 21 must find that: 22

1. The ancillary retail space does not occupy more than 10% of the total floor area, exclusive 23 of indoor parking occupied by the manufacturing use; 24

2. The size of the ancillary use is necessary for the operation of the manufacturing use; 25 3. The ancillary use as proposed will not cause substantial change in the primary 26

manufacturing-industrial character and appearance of the use, block and area; and 27 4. The ancillary use will not disrupt parking or loading spaces necessary for manufacturing at 28

the site or elsewhere and will not disrupt truck, forklift and other movements necessary to 29 manufacturing operations at the site or elsewhere. 30

31 32



12 | P a g e

MIXED USE – RESIDENTIAL (MU-R) DISTRICT 1

2

23E.84.060 Use Limitations and Special Permit Requirements 3 A. No commercial or manufacturing use shall operate except during the hours between 6:00 4

a.m. to 10:00 p.m., except as authorized by an Administrative Use Permit, and in 5 accordance with Section 23E.16.010. 6

B. Any use which is incidental to the primary use of a building or property shall be subject to 7 the permit requirements identified in the Uses Incidental to a Permitted Use heading, in 8 Table 23E.84.030, provided that incidental storage, wholesale and specified manufacturing 9 uses are allowed with a Zoning Certificate in this District, no additional permits are required. 10

C. Incidental Retail Sales shall meet the following: 11

Table 23E.84.030


Uses Permit Required to Establish, Expand or Change Use (sq. ft.)

Special Requirements

Retail Uses

Ancillary Sale of Goods

Distributed, but not manufactured, on site

Prohibited

Manufactured on site AUP Retail activity must be clearly ancillary. Retail floor area not to exceed the lesser of either 10% of usable floor area exclusive of parking or 1,500 sq. ft.

Arts and crafts supplies AUP if 5,000 or less; UP(PH) if more than 5,000

Building Materials and Garden Supply Stores, Nurseries

AUP

Food product stores, general and specialized

AUP if 5,000 or less; UP(PH) if more than 5,000

All Other Retail Sales Uses (other than Incidental Retail Sales of goods manufactured on site)

Prohibited


Amusement Devices (up to 3)

AUP


AUP

Incidental Retail Sales of goods manufactured on site

AUP See limitations in Section 23E.84.060.C



13 | P a g e

1. Signs for Incidental Retail Sales use shall be of such a size and character as to clearly 1 indicate that the retail use is not the Primary Use of the site; 2

2. Retail Sales floor area shall not exceed 10% of total Gross Floor Area; and 3 3. No outdoor sales or food service is allowed. 4

5

6



Parking Reductions (M, MM, MU-LI) Issue In 2005, the City Council added Sections 23E.28.130 and 23E.28.140 (Commercial Off-Street Parking chapter) to the Zoning Ordinance to allow project-specific reductions in the parking requirements for properties in the various C Districts when additional parking would otherwise be required, i.e. when a new use occupied existing floor area or new floor area is added, if certain findings can be made. Similar proposals were made for the M and MU districts, but not adopted. Currently, Sections 23E.72.080.B and 23E.76.080.B allow for parking reductions in the M and MM Districts, however this reduction is granted for a minimum time frame, and the board must find that the demand for parking can be expected to be below the otherwise required level for a sustained period of time. Sections 23E.80.080.B and 23E.84.080.B also provide limited flexibilty. This leaves no method for staff or the Zoning Board to make parking reduction exchanges for businesses that provide or encourage alternative modes of transportation for their employees. Currently, 10% of parking may be exchanged for motorcycle or bicycle parking, but this amount can leave smaller businesses shy of whole parking space reductions (eg. an applicant seeking a reduction from two required spaces to one would not gain benefit from the 10% reduction). Proposal 1. Utilize similar parking reduction standards as those used in commercial districts but adapt for

industrial districts. For example, manufacturing districts don’t have the same traffic flow as the commercial districts: cars are primarily those of employees, and typically there for an entire shift. When drafting new language, these and other differences will need to be addressed, so that parking reductions, if granted, can be addressed in the appropriate way.

Sections of Code to Amend 1. Amend Required Findings for Parking Reductions Section to include findings for M districts

(Create new Section—23E.28.145).

Supporting Goals and Policies from the West Berkeley Area Plan Transportation Element Goals 1 and 4: - Improve traffic flow and air quality by reducing reliance on single occupant

automobiles, by encouraging use of alternatives means of transportation.

- Create and maintain adequate parking to support West Berkeley land use without creating increased incentives for single occupant automobile use.

Judicious use of parking reductions could encourage employees to utilize alternative

means of transportation, carshares or other transit demand management strategies as outlined in the West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan Report.



Physical Form Urban Design Goal 2.5, 7.3 and 8.2 - Encourage consolidated locations for shared parking facilities, where several different

uses would share parking in a consolidated location. - To improve the economic feasibility of preserving historic buildings, the City should

creatively use the tools which the West Berkeley Plan Preferred Land Use Concept provides, and should explore the possibilities for changes in development standards, fees, or placement of uses, without, however, violating Plan policies, district purposes, or district permitted uses.

- The City should encourage the sensitive reuse of existing buildings in West Berkeley

and offer incentives such as permit-streamlining and other assistance.

Consolidated parking already occurs in many cases in West Berkeley, where a single block or set of buildings use a common parking lot, often under one ownership. More extensive shared parking could occur as new development occurs on certain properties, with vacant private property used as interim public parking facilities for surrounding development.

Reductions in the amount of required parking spaces could increase the feasibility

for businesses to locate in historical renovated buildings or existing buildings that do not meet parking requirements. This both increases the space available for businesses, and encourages the preservation and re-use of historic buildings.



Proposed Zoning Language 1

2

23E.28.130 Parking Requirements for Change of Use and Expansions of Buildings 3

in C and M –Districts 4

A. No change of use shall be required to meet the off-street parking requirements of 5

either the district or this chapter unless the structure has been expanded to 6

include new floor area or the use is changed to one with a higher numerical 7

parking standard than the district minimum. When the new use has the same or a 8

lower numerical parking standard than the previous use, the new use shall not be 9

required to meet the off-street parking requirements of the district and this 10

chapter. 11

B. No new floor area shall be created through building expansions, unless it 12

satisfies the parking requirements of the district and this chapter. However, the 13

Zoning Officer may modify the parking requirements for new floor area for 14

expansions of existing buildings with an Administrative Use Permit, subject to the 15

findings in Sections 23E.28.140 or 23E.28.145. 16

C. For a change of use of existing floor area where the new use has a higher 17

numerical parking standard than the existing use as listed in the district 18

provisions, the following applies: 19

1. The new use must provide the incremental difference between the two 20

numerical parking standards, which must meet all other parking 21

requirements. 22

2. A higher numerical parking standard may be reduced to the district 23

minimum and other parking requirements may be modified with an 24

Administrative Use Permit, subject to the findings in Sections 25

23E.28.140 or 23E.28.145. If the new use requires a Use Permit, the 26

Zoning Adjustments Board shall approve, deny or modify the request, 27

subject to the findings in Sections 23E.28.140 or 23E.28.145. If the 28

numerical parking reduction is approved, no additional off-street parking 29

is required. 30

23E.28.140 Required Findings for Parking Reductions Under Section 23E.28.130 31

for C—Districts 32

A. In order to approve any Administrative Use Permit or Use Permit under this 33

chapter, the Zoning Officer or Board must make the findings required by Section 34

23B.28.050 and/or 23B.32.040 as applicable, in addition to any findings required 35

in this section to the extent applicable. 36

B. To approve any reduction of the off-street parking spaces under Section 37

23E.28.130, or under other sections that refer to this section, the Zoning Officer 38

or Zoning Adjustments Board must find that the reduction will not substantially 39



reduce the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity of the use. The Zoning 1

Officer or Board must also find that at least one of each of the two groups of 2

conditions below apply: 3

1. 4

1.a. The use is located one-third of a mile or less from a 5

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, intercity rail 6

station or rapid bus transit stops; or 7

2.b. The use is located one-quarter of a mile or less from 8

a publicly accessible parking facility, the use of 9

which is not limited to a specific business or activity 10

during the new use’ s peak parking demand; or 11

3.c. A parking survey conducted under procedures set 12

forth by the Planning Department finds that within 13

500 feet or less of the use, on the non-residential 14

streets where the use is located, at least two times 15

the number of spaces requested for reduction are 16

available through on-street parking spaces for at 17

least two of the four hours of the new use’ s peak 18

parking demand; or 19

4.d. The use includes one of the following neighborhood-20

serving uses: Retail Products Store(s), Food Service 21

Establishments, and/or Personal/Household 22

Service(s). These uses include, but are not limited 23

to: Dry Cleaning and Laundry Agents, Drug Stores, 24

Food Products Stores, Household Items Repair 25

Shops, and/or Laundromats; and 26

2. 27

5.a. The parking requirement modification will meet the 28

purposes of the district related to improvement and 29

support for alternative transportation, pedestrian 30

improvements and activity, or similar policies; or 31

6.b. There are other factors, such as alternative 32

transportation demand management strategies or 33

policies in place, which will reduce the parking 34

demand generated by the use. 35

C. To approve any modification of the parking requirements, unrelated to the 36

number of spaces, under Section 23E.28.130, or under other sections that refer 37

to that section the Zoning Officer or Zoning Adjustments Board must find that the 38

parking requirement modification allows the continued use of an existing parking 39



supply and that meeting the parking requirements is not financially feasible or 1

practical. 2

23E.28.145 Required Findings for Parking Reductions Under Section 23E.28.130 3

for M—Districts 4

A. In order to approve any Administrative Use Permit or Use Permit under this 5

chapter, the Zoning Officer or Board must make the findings required by Section 6

23B.28.050 and/or 23B.32.040 as applicable, in addition to any findings required 7

in this section to the extent applicable. 8

B. To approve any reduction of the off-street parking spaces in any M District under 9

Section 23E.28.130, or under other sections that refer to that section, the Zoning 10

Officer or Zoning Adjustments Board must find that the reduction will not 11

substantially reduce the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity of the use. 12

The Zoning Officer or Board must also find that at least one of each of the two 13

groups of conditions below apply: 14

1. 15

a. The use is located one-third of a mile or less from a 16

rapid bus transit stop, an intercity rail station or a 17

bus stop serving more than [06] lines; or 18

b. The use is located one-quarter of a mile or less from 19

a [public or] private parking area, lot, or structure 20

that is accessible by the employees of the use and 21

sufficient parking supply is available therein to 22

mitigate the reduction in parking for the use; or 23

[Since there are few publicly accessible parking 24

facility in the area we could open this to include 25

shared parking facilities that the applicant will either 26

initiate or join] 27

c. A parking survey conducted under procedures set 28

forth by the Planning Department finds that within 29

[500] feet or less of the use, on non-residential 30

streets, at least two times the number of spaces 31

requested for reduction are available through on-32

street parking spaces during the use’s hours of 33

operation; and 34

2. 35

a. The parking requirement modification will meet the 36

purposes of the West Berkeley Plan related to 37

improvement and support for alternative 38



transportation, pedestrian improvements and 1

activity, or similar policies; or 2

b. There are other project specific factors, such as 3

alternative transportation demand management 4

strategies or policies in place, which will reduce the 5

parking demand generated by the use. 6

C. To approve any modification of the parking requirements, unrelated to the 7

number of spaces, under Section 23E.28.130, or under other sections that refer 8

to that section the Zoning Officer or Zoning Adjustments Board must find that the 9

parking requirement modification allows the continued use of an existing parking 10

supply and that meeting the parking requirements is not financially feasible or 11

practical. 12

13

14


West Berkeley Project: Zoning Amendments Proposed Uses v. 4/7/10

1 | P a g e

Proposed New Uses and Changes to Existing Uses 1

(Definitions and Use Tables) 2

3

In October of 2009, staff presented a table of proposed new uses to the Planning commission. 4

The table was the culmination of meetings between stakeholder groups, the Office of 5

Economic Development, and planning staff. In response to the direction given by Planning 6

Commission, staff has written draft language for the recommended new uses and changes to 7

existing uses. 8

9

The following language will need to be added to Section 23F.04.010. 10

11

Draft Language 12

Warehouse Based Non-store Retail: 13

Retail activity that is based on sales without on-site customer visits. Such activity includes, but 14

is not limited to, catalog sales, internet web sites, and phone orders. Goods are both stored 15

and distributed from site. 16

17

Compressed Natural Gas and Alternative Fueling/ Charging Stations: 18

Note: Gasoline and Automobile Fueling Stations are prohibited in many locations that the city would like 19 to allow alternative fueling stations. The definition for auto fueling stations (below) will be refined further 20 to distinguish between the two categories of stations. 21

“Gasoline/Automobile Fuel Station: Any establishment dispensing motor vehicle fuel from storage 22 tanks, pipes, compressors, batteries or electrical transmission facilities, into vehicles including, but not 23 limited to, gasoline, diesel fuel, Gasohol, hydrogen, compressed natural gas, electricity or any 24 combination thereof.” 25

26

Contractor: 27

Any person who contracts to undertake and complete a construction project or a discrete part thereof, 28

including all persons defined as contractors and subject to Chapter 9 of the State of California Business and 29

Professions Code. 30

31

Services to Buildings and Dwellings: 32

A business that provides services to customers at a location other than the business location. 33 Examples include but are not limited to: carpet/upholstry cleaning, security services, and janitorial 34 services. 35

36

37

38



2 | P a g e

Truck and Utility Trailer Rental and Leasing 1

Establishments primarily engaged in renting or leasing, one or more of the following: trucks, truck 2 tractors or buses: semitrailers and utility trailers. This definition is declaratory of existing law in that it 3 defines a previously undefined term in a manner that is consistent with the City’s prior interpretation 4 and the plain meaning of the term 5 6

Visual and Aural Arts Production 7

Commercial arts and art-related business services including, but not limited to, music and film recording 8

and editing studios and services; film and video production; titling; video and film libraries; special 9

effects production, and similar uses. 10

11

M District 12

Table 23E.72.030


Uses Permits Required to Establish, Expand or Change

Use (sq. ft.) Special

Requirements

Under 20,000 20,000- 40,000 More than

40,000



ZC AUP UP(PH)

Light Manufacturing ZC AZ UP(PH)

Mini-storage Warehouses AUP AUP UP(PH) Changes of Use to Mini-storage warehouse prohibited


Prohibited

Petroleum refining and products

Prohibited


Primary Production Manufacturing

AUP UP(PH) UP(PH)



ZC AUP UP(PH)



3 | P a g e

Warehouse-Based Non-Store Retailers

ZC AUP UP (PH)

Wholesale Trade Establishments

ZC AUP UP(PH)

Other Industrial Uses

Art/Craft Studio AUP AUP UP(PH) Workspaces only, no Live/Work permitted

Bus, cab, truck and public utility depots

AUP UP

Commercial Excavation UP(PH) Including earth, gravel, minerals, or other building materials, including drilling for, or removal of, oil or natural gas

Contractors’ Yards AUP UP

Dry Cleaning and Laundry Plants

ZC AUP UP(PH) No retail service permitted

Laboratories, Testing and Commercial Biological Research

Prohibited

Radio, Television, Motion Picture or Audio/Sound Recording and/or Broadcast StudiosVisual and Aural Arts Production

UP(PH) AUP

UP (PH)

Recycled Materials Processing ZC* AUP UP * if all processing done indoors, if any outdoors AUP

Repair Service (other than auto repair)

ZC AUP UP No retail sales permitted

Services to Buildings and Dwellings

AUP

Automobile and Other Vehicle Oriented Uses

Compressed Natural Gas and AUP UP(PH) UP(PH)



4 | P a g e

1

MM District 2

Table 23E.76.030




Under 20,000

20,000- 40,000

More than 40,000



ZC AUP UP(PH)

Light Manufacturing ZC ZC UP(PH)

Mini-storage Warehouses Prohibited Changes of Use to Mini-storage warehouse prohibited


Prohibited

Petroleum refining and products Prohibited



AUP UP UP(PH)



ZC AUP UP(PH)


ZC AUP UP (PH)

Wholesale Trade establishments ZC AUP UP(PH)


Art/Craft Studio AUP AUP UP Workspaces only, no Live/Work permitted


AUP UP

Commercial Excavation UP(PH) Including earth, gravel, minerals, or other building materials,

Alternative Fueling/Charging Stations



5 | P a g e

including drilling for, or removal of, oil or natural gas


Dry Cleaning and Laundry Plants ZC AUP UP(PH) No retail service permitted


AUP UP UP(PH)

Radio, Television, Motion Picture or Audio/Sound Recording and/or Broadcast StudiosVisual and Aural Arts Production

AUP UP(PH)

Recycled Materials Processing ZC* AUP UP * if all processing done indoors, if any outdoors AUP




AUP


Automobile dismantling/ wrecking AUP UP(PH) UP(PH)

Automobile Repair and Service UP(PH)

Automobile washes, mechanical or self-service

Prohibited

Automobile, Boat, Motorcycle or other new or used vehicle or vehicle parts sales

Prohibited

Compressed Natural Gas and Alternative Fueling/Charging Stations

AUP UP(PH) UP(PH)

Gasoline Stations Prohibited

1



6 | P a g e

MU-LI District 1

Table 23E.76.030




Under 20,000

20,000- 40,000

More than 40,000



ZC AUP UP(PH)

Light Manufacturing ZC ZC UP(PH)

Mini-storage Warehouses

Prohibited Changes of Use to Mini-storage warehouse prohibited


Prohibited

Petroleum refining and products

Prohibited



AUP UP UP(PH)



ZC AUP UP(PH)


ZC AUP UP (PH)

Wholesale Trade establishments

ZC AUP UP(PH)


Art/Craft Studio AUP AUP UP Workspaces only, no Live/Work permitted


AUP UP

Commercial Excavation UP(PH) Including earth, gravel, minerals, or other building materials, including drilling for, or removal of, oil or natural gas




7 | P a g e

Dry Cleaning and Laundry Plants

ZC AUP UP(PH) No retail service permitted


AUP UP UP(PH)

Radio, Television, Motion Picture or Audio/Sound Recording and/or Broadcast Studios

UP(PH)

Recycled Materials Processing

ZC* AUP UP * if all processing done indoors, if any outdoors AUP




AUP

Visual and Aural Arts Production

Under 10,000 10,000-20,000

Over 20,000

ZC AUP UP (PH)


Automobile dismantling/ wrecking

AUP UP(PH) UP(PH)

Automobile Repair and Service

UP(PH)

Automobile washes, mechanical or self-service

Prohibited

Automobile, Boat, Motorcycle or other new or used vehicle or vehicle parts sales

Prohibited

Compressed Natural Gas and Alternative Fueling/Charging Stations

AUP UP(PH) UP(PH)

Gasoline Stations Prohibited

Truck and Utility Trailer Rental and Leasing

AUP UP (PH) Prohibited

1

2



8 | P a g e

MU-R District 1

2

Table 23E.84.030


Uses Permit Required to Establish, Expand or Change Use (sq. ft.)

Special Requirements


Art/Craft Studios AUP if 5,000 or less; UP(PH) if more than 5,000 Subject to parking requirements; see Section 23E.84.080.B

Bus, cab, truck, and public utility depots

UP(PH)

Commercial Excavation Prohibited Including earth, gravel, minerals or other building materials including drilling for, or removal of, oil or natural gas

Contractor’s Yards UP(PH)

Dry Cleaning and Laundry Plants UP(PH)

Laboratories, Testing and Commercial Physical or Biological Research

Prohibited

Laboratories, Motion Picture or Testing

AUP

Radio, Television or Audio/Sound Recording and/or Broadcast Studios

UP(PH)

Visual and Aural Arts Production Under 10,000 10,000-20,000 Over 20,000

ZC AUP UP (PH)


West Berkeley Project: Master Use Permit Draft Language v. 165 03/17/1007/20/2010

1 | P a g e

Chapter 23B.36 1 MASTER USE PERMITS 2

3

23B.36.010 Applicability 4

23B.36.020 Purposes 5

23B.36.030 Master Use Permit Application—Process 6

23B.36.040 Reserved 7

23B.36.050 Permissible Alterations of Development Standards and Permitted 8

Uses 9

23B.36.060 Master Use Permit excludes other alterations of development 10

standards 11

23B.36.070 Contents of Master use Permit 12

23B.36.080 Vesting 13

23B.36.090 Findings 14

15

16


A. The Master Use Permit (“MUP”) process may be used for any site that is: (i) 18

located in one or more of the MU-LI, MM, or M districts and consists of at least 19

4 contiguous acres in area under a single ownership (whether or not in a single 20

parcel); or (ii) a full city block that is predominantly located in one or more of 21

the MU-LI, MM, or M districts, regardless of ownership. An MUP site may 22

include property located in the C-W or M-UR district subject to the additional 23

regulations in Section 23B.36.050B. 24

B. The size or boundaries of a proposed MUP site consisting of a full city block 25

may be adjusted to exclude any area in an R district that would otherwise be 26

included without becoming ineligible for an MUP, if the Board determines that 27

such adjustment is minor and its inclusion will not be detrimental to the 28

remainder of the R district. The Zoning Officer may adopt regulations for the 29

efficient processing of requests for such determinations. Such regulations shall 30

provide for the appeal of Board determinations under this subdivision to the 31

City Council. For purposes of this Chapter, the MU-R District is not considered 32

a residential district 33

C.B. The City may not approve more than 6 MUPs during the 10 years immediately 34

following the effective date of this Chapter. Notwithstanding Section 35

23B.56.100, an MUP project shall secure a building permit within 24 months of 36

the project’s approval. Failure to do so may result in the lapse of the MUP, 37

pursuant to Section 23B.56, and that MUP may not be counted for purposes of 38

this section. 39

40



2 | P a g e

1


The purposes of this Chapter are to provide flexibility in zoning requirements for projects 3

in West Berkeley that are located on large sites in order to: 4

A. Facilitate the implementation of area plans, including the West Berkeley Plan; 5

B. Facilitate the reuse of large and multi-user sites which might otherwise prove 6

difficult to reuse; 7

C. Facilitate the development and reuse of large, multi-user sites as integrated 8

units, designed to produce an environment of stable and desirable character that 9

will benefit the occupants, the neighborhood, and the city as a whole; 10

D. Consolidate the review of the impacts of the development and reuse of large and 11

multi-user projects; 12

E. Improve Berkeley’s competitiveness in attracting, incubating, retaining and 13

growing businesses by allowing businesses to develop and commence operation 14

on a site quickly once overall development requirements have been established; 15

F. Attract and retain businesses, especially those engaged in diverse, 16

comparatively clean, and environmentally beneficial industrial activities; 17

G. Attract businesses in emerging sectors of the economy; 18

H. Retain and provide space for artists; 19

I. Reduce or mitigate circulation, access and parking problems by improving 20

transportation infrastructure, reducing vehicle use by employees and providing 21

adequate parking; 22

J. Expand the availability of and access to jobs and job training programs; and 23

K. Raise funds for programs and initiatives that further the goals and purposes of 24

the West Berkeley Area Plan. 25

26

23B.36.030 Master Use Permit Application—Process 27

A. MUP applications shall include all materials required by Section 23B.24.030, 28

except that they shall not be required to include architectural plans or drawings 29

for phases subsequent to the first phase(s). 30

B. Applications for Master Use Permits shall include a detailed phasing plan that 31

shows the nature, scale, general location and timing of all physical development, 32

including on- and off-site infrastructure, and locations of proposed uses. 33

C. Applications for Master Use Permits shall be subject to the provisions under 34

Chapter 23B.32, except that notice area required by 23B.32.020 shall be 35

expanded to five hundred (500) feet of the subject property and notice of public 36

hearing shall be posted and mailed 30 days in advance. 37

38

23B.36.040 Reserved 39



3 | P a g e

1

23B.36.050 Permissible Alterations of Development Standards and Permitted 2

Uses 3

A. An applicant for a Master Use Permit may request, and the Board may approve, 4

the following deviations from the lot development standards and permissible uses 5

set forth in the underlying applicable zoning district regulations: 6

1. Parking Requirements: full or partial reduction of off-street parking 7

requirements; 8

2. Height Limitations: increases in permitted maximum height up to 75 feet; 9

3. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Restrictions: increases in permitted maximum FAR of 10

up three; 11

4. Setbacks: reduced setbacks from residential uses; 12

5. Spacing Requirements: use separation standards may be reduced; 13

6. Uses: any use identified in Chapters 23E.72, 23E.76 or 23E.80 may be 14

permitted on a Master Use Permit site without regard to the district 15

boundaries subject to the thresholds and permit requirements which shall be 16

established in the Master Use Permit; 17

7. The replacement of Manufacturing, Warehouse, Wholesale, or Material-18

Recovery activities with Other Industrial uses permitted in any of the zoning 19

districts in which the subject property is located. 20

B. To the extent that any MUP site includes property in the C-W or MU-R districts, 21

uses permitted only in the C-W or MU-R districts may be located anywhere on 22

the MUP site, but the amounts of land and building square feet devoted to those 23

uses shall not exceed the amounts that would have been permitted on the area 24

within the C-W or MU-R district(s), as applicable. 25

C. The amounts of land and building square feet devoted to those uses shall not 26

exceed the amounts that would have been permitted on the area within the C-W 27

or MU-R district(s), as applicable. 28

D. The Gross Floor Area allocated for each use may vary from that set forth in the 29

Master Use Permit by up to ten percent (10%) with a Zoning Certificate, as long 30

as the new use allocations meet all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 31

Variations of more than ten percent (10%) but less than twenty-five percent 32

(25%) from the stated Gross Floor Area for any use may be authorized by the 33

Zoning Officer; variations of more than twenty-five percent (25%) may be 34

authorized by the Board. Any such change is still subject to the requirements set 35

forth in the MUP and to the finding required by Section 23B.32.040. 36

E. Notwithstanding the conversion requirements applicable in the underlying 37

districts within an approved MUP, spaces within an MUP site may be divided, 38

aggregated and/or converted in any manner, as a matter of right as long as such 39



4 | P a g e

division, aggregation or conversion is consistent with the square footage 1

limitations set forth in the MUP. 2

3

23B.36.060 Master Use Permit excludes other alterations of development 4

standards 5

The flexibility provided under this Chapter to alter development standards is exclusive 6

and supersedes all other provisions of this Title except Section 23B.44.050 under which 7

development standards may be altered. 8

9

23B.36.070 Contents of Master Use Permit 10

In addition to the information and requirements that are normally contained in a Use 11

Permit, as well as any specific additional conditions or requirements the Board may 12

impose, a Master Use Permit shall include the number of square feet of buildings and 13

land to be used for Industrial (Manufacturing, Wholesaling and warehousing), Office 14

(exclusive of offices ancillary to other uses), Commercial (Retail and Personal service), 15

Live/Work Units and Residential Uses and a detailed phasing plan as described in 16

Section 23B.36.030.A. 17

18

23B.36.080 Vesting 19

A. An MUP shall be deemed to have been exercised in its entirety upon the 20

substantial completion of the first phase thereof. Thereafter, it shall be 21

considered to be vested in its entirety. 22

B. Failure to substantially comply with the detailed phasing plan contained in the 23

MUP shall be a violation of the MUP and subject to revocation or modification per 24

Chapter 23B.60. 25

26

23B.36.090 Findings 27

A. In order to approve a MUP, the Board must make the following findings: 28

1. The finding required by Section 23B.32.040; and 29

2. That the proposed project will be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 30

B. For alterations of development standards under Section 23B.36.050.A, the Board 31

must find that the proposed project would confer benefits that affirmatively 32

advance the purposes of this Chapter and the goals and policies of the 33

applicable Area Plan or, if there is no applicable Area Plan, the General Plan, 34

beyond what would be achieved by a project that did not receive any variations 35

under that Section. 36

C. For alterations of Permitted Uses under Section 23B.36.050.A.6, the Board must 37

find that the proposed project will maintain the overall industrial nature of the 38

West Berkeley Area and the MUP site. 39



5 | P a g e

D. For variations in the gross floor area allocated for specific uses under subdivision 1

C of Section 23B.36.050, the Zoning Officer or Board must make the following 2

findings: 3

1. The finding required by Section 23B.32.040; and 4

2. That any proposed variation is consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 5


Item 10—Attachment 2 Zoning Amendments Index 7.28.2010

Page 1 of 4

Re-Use Amendments

Proposed Amendments Districts Affected

Intent of Proposed Changes Pg. #

Mini-Storage

(TO PC 3/10) M Prohibit as a new use and prohibit expansion of existing uses. 1

Lot Size

(TO PC 3/10) M, MM Lower minimum allowed lot size from 40,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. 3

Height/Story/ F.A.R.

(TO PC 3/10) M, MM, MU-LI Eliminate story restriction: Allow Height/ F.A.R. to regulate 5

Childcare

(TO PC 3/10)

M, MM, MU-LI

Stand alone allowed in MU-LI (use MU-R standards; make AUP).

Allow as incidental use in all districts. 7

Food Service

(TO PC 3/10)

MU-LI, MU-R Drop spacing (distance between) and “made on site” requirements. 13

M, MM Allow Quick Serve and Carry Out as Incidental Uses. 13

Office Space/ Incidental and

Ancillary Space

(TO PC 3/17) MU-LI Define “Incidental” and “Ancillary:” Clarify code to reflect definitions. 19

Distance of residences from

incompatible uses

(to be delivered 7/28) MU-R

Within MU-R, allow for new/expansion of dwelling units that are located < 150 ft. from the M, MM districts – use AUP.

(Note: clarify distances measured to buildings, not district boundary lines?)

TBD

7/28

Parking Reductions

(TO PC 3/24:

Updated to be delivered 7/28)

M, MM, MU-LI Utilize similar standards as those used in commercial districts but adapt for industrial area.

33


Page 2 of 4

New/ Uses & Definitions (From March 2010)

Proposed New Use

Name Districts Allowed

New Definition Level of

Discretionary Permit Required

Def. On Pg#

Warehouse-based Non-store Retailers

(Manufacturing, Production, and Wholesale Trade)

M, MM, MU-LI

Retail activity that is based on sales without on-site customer visits. Such activity includes, but is not limited to, catalog sales, internet web sites, and phone orders. Goods are both stored and distributed from site

Under 20k — ZC

20k-40k—AUP

Above 40k — UP 39

Contractor

(Other Industrial Uses)

M, MM, MU-LI

Any person who contracts to undertake and complete a construction project or a discrete part thereof, including all persons defined as contractors and subject to Chapter 9 of the State of California Business and Professions Code.

Under 40k— AUP

Above 40K — UP39



M, MM, MU-LI

A business that provides services to customers at a location other than the business location. Examples include but are not limited to: carpet/upholstry cleaning, security services, and janitorial services. AUP 39

Truck and Utility Trailer Rental and Leasing


MU-LI

Establishments primarily engaged in renting or leasing, one or more of the following: trucks, truck tractors or buses: semitrailers and utility trailers. This definition is declaratory of existing law in that it defines a previously undefined term in a manner that is consistent with the City’s prior interpretation and the plain meaning of the term

Under 20K—AUP

20k-40k — UP 40

Changed Uses & Definitions (From March 2010)

Proposed Changed


Modified Definition Level of


Def. On pg#

Visual and Aural Arts Production

M, MM, MU-LI,

MU-R

Commercial arts and art-related business services including, but not limited to, music and film recording and editing studios and services; film and video production; titling; video and film libraries; special effects production, and similar uses.

MU-R, MU-LI:Under 10 K — ZC

10K-20K—AUP Above 20k—UP

M, MM:Under 20k—AUP Above 20K—UP

40


Page 3 of 4

Proposed Changed


Modified Definition Level of


Def. On pg#

Compressed Natural Gas Fueling Stations Change to existing

use name: Alternative

Fueling/Charging Stations.

M, MM, MU-LI

Compressed Natural Gas and Alternative Fueling/ Charging Stations:

Note: Gasoline and Automobile Fueling Stations are prohibited in many locations that the city would like to allow alternative fueling stations. The definition for auto fueling stations (below) will be refined further to distinguish between the two categories of stations.

“Gasoline/Automobile Fuel Station: Any establishment dispensing motor vehicle fuel from storage tanks, pipes, compressors, batteries or electrical transmission facilities, into vehicles including, but not limited to, gasoline, diesel fuel, Gasohol, hydrogen, compressed natural gas, electricity or any combination thereof.”

UP(PH)

TBD 7/28

Research and Development Proposed New Definition

Research and Development Planning Commission Discussion

7-14-2010


Page 4 of 4

Mater Use Permit (from March 2010)

Pg. In Booklet

Master Use Permit Updates (reflecting input from stakeholders) 47



23B.36.030 Mater Use Permit Application—Process 48

23B.36.050 Permissible Alterations of Development Standards & Permitted Uses 49-50

23B.36.060 Master Use Permit Excludes All Other Alterations to Development Standards 50

23B.36.070 Contents of Master Use Permit 50

23B.36.080 Vesting 50

23B.36.090 Findings 50-51

[email protected] July 20, 2010

• WEBAIC Issues: 4/14/10 Staff Report Zoning Proposals •

• New and Modified Uses and Definitions • Incidental and Ancillary definitions • • Clarification of Section 23E.80.045 - revised to reduce repetition of language/insure terms used consistently

1. Issue of Discretion Levels - Arts/Crafts & Contractors -

• Proposals gives ZC to internet retailers and Aural/Visual but not Contractors or Arts/Crafts -

A. Should be ZCs for Contractors - should have ZC up to 20,000

B. Should be ZCs for Art/Craft studios - up to 5000, (just like Mfg, Warehouse, Internet warehouse) Now AUPs in M/MM/MULI >40,000, UP above. In MUR AUP if 5,000 or less; UP if more than 5,000

2. Visual and Aural Arts Production - Discretion

A. ZC for <10,000 sq ft is TOO LOW FOR MUR - Now UP - Consideration for neighbors-parking/traffic.

B. Visual/Aural Arts in M Zone should be UP like now. Not in Keeping with M Purposes -need discretion there.

3. Incidental and Ancillary Space Staff should Give examples of ancillary and incidental>

A. Should reinstate existing space limitation of 3000 sq ft MULI, MM, 1500 sq ft in M District & MUR now 4. Look at Auto Repair

A. Being pushed off Commercial corridors -

B. Environmental + - keeps cars tuned - 2/3 energy use over car lifetime due to creation (result of mining/mfg)

C. Now in MM, MULI w/UP, MM Repair Service (other than Auto Repair -ZC?)

5. Allow dance, music, and rehearsal studios in M & MM Zone -

A. Performance, instruction and rehearsal studios (dance, music, theater) listed as Protected Use under

23E.80.040 (in MULI) but not listed as allowable use in M,MM,MULI zone (Stage Theaters allowed in MULI).

B. Existing Now in MM & MULI

C. Art/Craft ok now in M & MM, MULI why not rehearsal studios

D. "Dance, Exercise, Martial Arts & Music Studios" allowed in MUR

7. Recycled Materials Processing - Recycling Redemption Centers - Too Limited - ONLY IN M now

A. Recycling, Materials Processing should be allowed in Protected Use Space - - in keeping with environmental, activity, and employment G & P of Plan

8. "The cleanup of Section 23E.80.045 has removed redundant language only. There has been no change that would alter the protections that .045 provides to M/W/W/MRE uses."


A. This section is the core of the protection policies and needs examination to assure language changes accomplish intended goal.


Item 10—Attachment 4 PC Meeting 7/28/2010

Staff Responses to MUR Stakeholder Comments on Master Use Permit Draft language (From PC Meeting 4/14/2010)

Page 1 of 3

1. In relation to 23B.36.010.A The MUP process may be used for any site that is: located in one or more of the MULI MM or M districts and consists of at least 4 contiguous acres in area under single ownership. Would planning define contiguous? Staff Response: Staff proposes to change or add to “contiguous” for clarification. New language will include “abutting or confronting”, which means any parcel which abuts or confronts another even if a public right of way separates them. Concern about provision within the same section (23B.36.010.A) that allows a block with more than one owner (“a full city block that is predominantly located in one or more of the MU‐LI, MM, or M districts, REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP”). Staff Response: Staff agreed with the concern and has removed that provision. Staff suggests that any MUP site be under one ownership (individual, or group). Section 23B.36.010.B An MUP sit may include property located in the C‐W or MU‐R [subject to the additional regulations in Section 23B.36.050.B] Stakeholders expressed concern that allowing property that includes CW and/or MUR would remove protections for residents specifically listed in the WB Area Plan. Staff Response: Staff has included language, in the form of findings that would prevent an MUP from degrading the quality of life for residents of West Berkeley. Any AUP that ZAB reviews will still need to satisfy the non‐detriment finding as well as the condition listed in 23B.36.050.B.

2. Section 23B.36.050.B The size or boundaries of a proposed MUP site consisting of a full city block may be adjusted to exclude any area in an R district that would otherwise be included without becoming ineligible for an MUP. Stakeholders found language confusing and didn’t understand how it would be applied. Staff Response: Staff agreed and the language was removed. The original intent of this language was to add protections for R‐District residential areas (in the event of a residential parcel falling into a site that had a full city block). There are no instances where this occurs. MUR is not considered an R district.

3. 23B.36.010.B …for the purposes of this chapter, the MU‐R is not considered a residential district. The MU‐R residents felt that planning was disregarding the residences within the MUR. Staff response: The statement was made to clarify what is currently part of the Zoning Ordinance. The MU‐R is a Mixed Use‐Residential district designed to transition between the manufacturing and the pure Residential districts within West Berkeley.



Page 2 of 3

4. Section 23B.36.010.C The City may not approve more than 6 MUP’s during the 10 years immediately following the effective date of this Chapter. Notwithstanding Section 23B.56.100, and MUP project shall secure a building permit within 24 months of the project’s approval. Failure to do so may result in the lapse of the MUP, pursuant to Section 23B.56, and that MUP may not be counted for the purposes of this section. The group was concerned that this provision would do nothing to 1) prevent the expansion of an MUP, and 2) properties under different ownership could be combined as a single MUP without limit. Staff Response: 1) Any MUP that substantially changes from what was approved would need to apply for a modification and would need to go through the appropriate public process. Once an MUP is completed, an application to expand would require a completely separate MUP application. 2) Staff has removed the language that allows sites under multiple ownership (see item #1 second listed). We don’t control for property purchases, only the number of MUPs and other rules that govern their development.

5. 23B.36.030.A Master Use Permit Application—Process MUP applications shall include all material required by Section 23B.24.030, except that they shall not be required to include architectural plans or drawings for phases subsequent to the first phase. The group expressed concern that without architectural drawings, one cannot evaluate the detriment of a proposed project. Staff Response: The Master Use Permit is a long process. The above section lists the minimum requirements for APPLICATION, not for project APPROVAL. At minimum, the applicant will need to provide estimates of the uses, location of uses, and general massing configuration.

6. 23B.36.050.A Permissible Alterations of Development standards and Permitted Uses 1) 23B.36.050.A.1 Parking Requirements: Full or partial reduction of off‐street parking requirements

The stakeholders have stated that parking [reductions] must be supported by documented proven strategies, and consideration of existing uses that rely on street parking.

Staff Response: see findings which require non‐detriment and benefit to community (23B.36.090.A and 23B.36.090.B). 2) 23B.36.050.A.2 Height Limitations: increases in permitted maximum height up to 75 feet

and 3) 23B.36.050.A.3 FAR Restrictions: Increases in permitted maximum up to 3

The stakeholders do not see a need to exceed the 45‐foot existing limit, and wanted to know the rationale behind us inserting 75’ in the document. Staff Response for 2) and 3): The staff draft was guided by direction from the chair and vice‐chair. Height and FAR expansions/increases reflect new patterns of development in industrial and related areas. Vertical development patterns are useful in infill situations such as WB. Additionally, all projects will go through a public hearing process and are subject to the non‐detriment finding, as well as CEQA review. The 75‐foot height and FAR of 3 are suggested maximums—not required minimums; ZAB and CC will construct the MUP to address goals and needs of community within the parameters.



Page 3 of 3

4) 23B.36.050.A.4 Setbacks: Reduced setbacks from residential uses Group felt that setbacks were already minimal and should not be further reduced Staff Response: Staff has stricken the “from residential uses” as that was not the intent of the language. This allows the ZAB to consider allowing reductions in setbacks, and is not a guarantee. This provision allows the applicant to request a reduced setback.

7. If an MUP includes CW or MU‐R, does this change override the underlying standards of the CW or MU‐R zone? Staff Response: This question addresses two issues: 1) Whether the project would be allowed to request alterations to maximum development standards allowed in the CW and MUR Districts, and 2) whether the project would be allowed to apply uses allowed in the CW and MUR throughout the MUP site. (1)In terms of development standards, the project would be allowed to apply for the alterations to existing development standards even in the areas that are part of CW and MUR. When reviewed by ZAB, the proximity to abutting properties would be part of their consideration. For example, if the development pattern of the area near the MUP site was significantly lower in height and massing, the ZAB would need to take that into consideration in allowing the CW or MUR portion to exceed limits. In fact, the ZAB will need to do this for ANY MUP project, whether it has MUR and CW or not. (2) Uses would be allowed as listed in MUR and CW, but would be restricted by section 23B.36.050.B. In essence they are only allowed the amount of floor area that would have been allowed in the underlying district (for uses that are NOT allowed in M, MM, MU‐LI).

8. The stakeholders felt that section 23B.36.050.D negated the restrictions in section 23B.36.050.C: The amounts of land and building square feet devoted to those uses shall not exceed the amounts that would have been permitted on the area within the C‐W or MU‐R district(s) as applicable. Staff Response: The language in section 23B.36.050.D allows up to a 10% deviation in the gross floor area aloted to USES approved by the board with a ZC, up to 25% with an AUP, and anything above 25% with a UP. This allows for changes in the use mix as projects are constructed. This language is taken from the existing MUP language and is designed to provide flexibility as necessitated by construction—not to allow EXCESS of what was permitted.

9. 23B.36.060 Master Use Permit excludes other alterations of development standards. The flexibility provided under this Chapter to alter development standards is exclusive and supersedes all other provisions of this Title except Section 23B.44.050 under which development standards may be altered. Stakeholders wanted to know what this provision meant. Staff Response: This provision intends to limit the applicants for MUP’s to only the MUP process—they are not able to apply for variances, etc. as part of the MUP. This is to prevent “double dipping.”

MUR and CW uses in relation to an MUP site The MUR and CW districts abut portions of the MULI and MM districts, and some parcels and MUP sites actually straddle district boundaries. MULI is primarily industrial and allows no new residential uses; MUR is primarily residential and allows both new housing and light industry uses; CW allows both residential and commercial properties but no industrial uses. This juxtaposition of incompatible land uses – especially residential and industrial uses ‐‐ within a small land area gives rise to a critical concern about the long‐term viability of Berkeley’s industrial lands. In particular, how should the MUP process constrain the location of new residential uses within a MUP site to discourage the conversion of industrial land to residential land over time. The issue arises for MUP sites that are predominantly MULI or MM but also contain some MUR or CW land area BACKGROUND As currently drafted (distributed 3/17/2010, revised 7/29/2010), the MUP would allow a project with MUR/CW land area to request locating the existing development potential for those land areas elsewhere on the MUP site, subject to non‐detriment findings (See Attachment 1, pg 49, 23B.36.050.B.) The language would allow the applicant to retain uses and development potential that are allowed in the MUR and CW portions of the site, even when not allowed in the M, MM, or MU‐LI Districts. Further, the draft language would allow for the MUR/CW related development potential to be placed anywhere on the MUP site. For example, if an MUP site included one half acre of area in the MUR, the residential development potential of that site (21,780 square feet of land area, 1 unit per 1250 square feet of land area = 17 units) could be located anywhere on the site, including within MULI or MM area. Similarly, the higher density residential development potential in a CW zone could be moved into an adjacent MULI zone. The original intent of the current draft was to allow for cohesive development of the MUP site, including both MUR and CW related uses, but not to allow for expansion of residential or commercial (CW related) uses into what would continue to be manufacturing and industrial related use areas/zones. Staff has previously noted, upon further reflection, that we believe potential unintended consequences may result from the current draft approach, including significant land use conflicts between residential uses and manufacturing/industrial uses: residential uses could be located in a manner that would conflict both internally with industrial type uses in the MUP area over time, and externally with adjacent manufacturing uses. Stakeholders have also indicated concern with these potential conflicts. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has basically four options to address the separation of residential and industrial land uses within MUP sites that include MUR and CW areas: Option 1. Exclude CW and MUR areas from MUP sites

Staff believes this first option is inconsistent with Council’s direction to increase flexibility in developing multi‐parcel sites, especially considering the large number of parcels that straddle zoning district boundaries.

Option 2A. Anchor CW/MUR uses to CW/MUR land areas:


This option would allow MUP sites to include some MUR and CW land areas, but would anchor the CW/MUR uses and development standards to the underlying zone. This second option would prevent further intrusion of residential uses into industrial areas, thereby providing no new impetus for Berkeley’s industrial lands to morph into commercial or residential properties. However, this option might allow too little flexibility in site planning and might preclude some opportunities to improve the separation between existing residential and industrial land uses.

Option 2B. Allow limited flexibility to improve separation of incompatible uses:

This option would allow limited flexibility in the location and development standards for the CW/MUR uses if the result would improve the separation of incompatible uses, in particular residential and industrial uses. By requiring that the location of CW/MUR uses would improve the separation of incompatible uses, this amendment would discourage conversion of industrial to residential/commercial land over time. Creating a new finding or expanding/adding another “Purpose” for this zoning chapter could be used to this end. A finding could read something like the following, added to the currently proposed Finding D (23B.36.090.D, pg. 50):

D. For variations in the gross floor area and location within the MUP site for specific uses

under Subdivision 23B.36.050.C, the Zoning Officer or board must make the following findings: 1. The finding required by Section 23B.32.040; 2. That any proposed variation is consistent with the purposes of this chapter; and 3. The location of uses (1) outside the CW or MUR areas that (2) are not otherwise

allowed in the M, MM, or MULI zoning districts, shall improve the separation of incompatible uses, especially industrial and residential uses.

Option 2C: Allow the uses to float within the proposed site:

This option would allow the location and changed development standards for the CW/MUR uses to float anywhere within the MUP site, if the resulting land use pattern is compatible with the surrounding land uses, both within and outside the site.

This option differs from Option 2B in that the location requirement is less stringent, requiring only compatibility among the land uses rather than improved separation of incompatible uses. An additional finding would not be necessary for Option 2C., since consistency with the purposes of the district and the standard non‐detriment finding would suffice to prevent adverse impacts. Developers would have more flexibility in designing a “campus” atmosphere for the overall site, but might allow residential uses to intrude into industrial areas over time, which would conflict with the West Berkeley Plan. The land use districting concept of the West Berkeley Plan, (Chapter V, page 37 – 40) specifies that residential uses would be allowed in the MUR District but not in the MULI, MM, and M Districts. It also recommends buffering residents from heavy industrial uses. Figure 1‐3, “The Spectrum of Permitted Uses,” (West Berkeley Plan, pg. 38) clearly depicts the separation of residential uses from industrial uses in the three industrial districts.


��

��

��

�� !�� "��!�#�� $��

%�� !��%��!�� &��#��

��"��'��$ ��#��(�� #� ��

)��*�� $��! ��#��$��#��)��$�� +��+ ��+��+

��$��$ �� '� ��,�� !��-�� .+ ��+� ��

�� !��$ ��

"��/��'��$ ��0�� 1��2��+��*��3�� 0�� .��

��455��#��0�� !� ��/�� +�#�� &��#��#�!��

��6��0�� 1��7��

�� ! ��#�� #��!��/��8� ��"�� !��

��$��9�� -�� *��8��-

��8�� :��$��!�� #��;�,�#�� %�� +��

#��#��$�� ! � ��$��%#�� #�� 0�� 1��

��"��#�9�� !�� <�� !��$�=

��"��/��<�� =��# ��! ��.4��+�(��+��

,**>+��:�� '��

>�#��'�� ?��$ �� #�� !�� 0�� 1��@��A��9��

!��B��>��+�(��+�� !��!�� &��

�� 6�� ! � �� :��

@��<��:��!�=�9��7! ��#��B��0�� 1��

��!�� /�� <6�� =��

<�� /��!-�� #��$��#��#�� @�/��=��+ ��+� �9��

#�� ! �� 0�#�1��$�8�� /��

��!��!!��!��C�� !��+��

@�� 8��"��"��/��!��3��'� ��

��+� ��!��!�!��3��B ��#��$��

�� !�� @��A�� DB�� " ��6��E� ��

�� B ��/�� <��=��#��#�* ��0�#�1��$��!�� F2��!�� B ��

�� <!�� !��=��#��)�� $�� !��$�� !��

B �� <#��/��!�� ! ��#��#�� =��

�� B ��/��!��+��!�� !� �� !��#��

�� $��@��"!�� B��B��

F�� ! ��!��<�!�� !��=��

�� !��

6��#�� B�� 8��"��#�� (�� !�#��

�� #��+�� #��$��

�� ! �7�� !�� '��"��/�� !��

�� !�"#��$"

#�%��&��'()��

��

��

�� !!

"�� #�"$�!%"%�"%��"�&�

Communication - Bronstein July 28, 2010

��+��!�� !�� !��8��)��

�� -�� $��!��"��@�� @�� /�� !��$��#�/��#�

�� $��!�� G�� #��%��

��!��%��

*�� @�� # ��/�� 7�� @�#��H

)�� /�� #��I�)��

��B��B��!��#��

��I�@��/��#�� !��!!��I

@��'��$ �� 7��! �� +��+�� +�� !!��E��!��

6��>��8�� 44��

�� #��$��

��$��!�� #��"��6��0��

G�� )��@��$�� E6>8/��8*��'��8� ��#��!��

��!��!��! ��#��#��$�� <�� #��$��=�8� ��

<@�/��!��'��/��!��=

'��$��0�� 1��B��>��!!�� !�� !��'��9��!��

808��!��+�� G�� 7�� !��

#��+��!��$��$�� G��!�� +

��+�� 6��A��7�� +��(��$+�� +��

��0�#�1��$/��

9��!�� <��!��8��=��

<��!!�� :��#� ��

�� #�� !!��

��+�� #�� =

��7��'��$ ��0�� 1��/�� @��!��/��$�

��#��!��#�� 0�� 1�� !�� #��

��?�� (�� !�� !+��

�!�� J@��7!��0�� 1�� #��#��

��4��+�� #��!��K��

�� !�� /��#�� /�� !��7�� #��7��#�

!�� !��"��.�?��#��#� ��#��

'� ��' ��'� ��)��$��!D�!�� !��0�� 1��

�� +�� 8�!� ��

��0�� 1��/��!��!�� ! ��

�$��!�� #��+�� <)�/��

��$�=�9�� <@��/�� $�� $�� $��$��@��

�� +�� #�� !�� L=

3�� 6� ��3��B ��!��#�� @��

��$�� !��#�� # ��

�� 7�� #�� $��<��B�� =�6� ��/��

��$�� !�� +�� #��+

�� E��!��! ��#��!��$�� (��!��

��#��$�� #��!��

��

��

�� !!

!�� #�"$�!%"%�"%��"�&�


��!HDD###��!� ��D��D�� !�!I��M�2��

�� !!

�� #�"$�!%"%�"%��"�&�


�

Harrison, Jordan

From: Buckley, StevenSent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 4:03 PMTo: Harrison, JordanSubject: FW: On the Matter of West Berkeley Industries and Artisans

Follow Up Flag: Follow upDue By: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:00 PMFlag Status: Flagged

�

�

��

�� !��"�#��

�� $��%��&��'��(��'!��)��'��*'��

�

�

��+(��#�,��- �-�.-��+(��#�,��- �-/��

��

��0�''��, � �'!�� 1�� %��&��'��(��'!��)��'��*'��

To the Berkeley Planning Commission,

I wish to comment about the situation with West Berkeley development issues. Speaking as a Berkeley resident who traces his family history to this area for over a century, as well as a being a long time environmentalist, I never thought that I would see the day when Green Jobs would be used as a reason to justify the forced displacement of long time residents and businesses. Indeed, the public campaign that I see against the West Berkeley Alliance of Artisans and Industrial Companies is especially galling. For the supporters of this so-called "Green Corridor" to accuse these local businesses as people living the past flies in the face of reality. Many of these companies have been "Green businesses" long before it became a trendy thing to do. Urban Ore, for example, has been recycling household items and building materials for well over twenty five years. This so-called "Green Corridor" that Mayor Bates so loudly trumpets is merely a smoke screen to mask the intentions of a few well connected moneyed interests who want to turn West Berkeley into an extension of Emeryville, with ever more expensive condos and office buildings. Its as if a sort of "Manifest Destiny is being preached by these so-called "progressive" political forces. While I have nothing against the idea of Green industries, I nevertheless believe that the actions of the City of Berkeley to de-industrialize the flatlands are in my opinion, killing the goose that lays the golden egg. The businesses that WEBAIC represents greatly contribute to the economic well being of Berkeley, and generate much needed revenue that stays in the city. With the East Bay in the middle of a major economic depression, to purposely destroy independent businesses and the artistic community who live in this neighborhood is nothing short of insanity. This pie in the sky called "Green Jobs" is still in the birthing stage, and to risk our regions economic future on a maybe is the same sort of thinking that got us into our current economic disaster. It makes much more sense to keep manufacturing in West Berkeley, which will in turn, create a fertile environment for independent green related businesses to start and to flourish. Sincerely, John F. Davies

Communication - Davies Planning Commssion July 28, 2010

�

Harrison, Jordan

From: Fran Segal [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 7:50 PMTo: Harrison, Jordan; Planning Dept. MailboxSubject: North ShattuckAttachments: Description.doc; ATT4066326.txt; N. Shattuck Commons design for email.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow upDue By: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:00 AMFlag Status: Flagged

��

�

��

!��"��#��"�� "��

��$�� %$��

�""��#�� "��$�� "��

�� "�� #�

�

��$��$��"��"��&��#��"��

��&��#�

�

'��"�#�

�

��

�

(��!��

��"�)��"��

*+,,�-��)��

��./01.�

�

'��'��2��3��

$$$#(��!��#"��

�

�

Communication - Segal Planning Commission July 28, 2010

AN IDEA FOR A NORTH SHATTUCK GREEN COMMONS As a North Berkeley resident, I’ve thought a lot about what real improvement of north Shattuck would look like to me. In the past, commercial developers talked about “open green space”, which sounded great, but it turned out to be a few potted plants on a widened concrete sidewalk. So after studying the area more, I decided to draw up the plan that’s attached with this letter. Maybe, if most people in the neighborhood like it, it could be used as a bargaining chip when the next developers come along who want to add density. The background map is based on the North Shattuck Association’s area map, that includes a directory of businesses by map number.

Here’s the essence of the plan: Most of the area in between CVS Pharmacy and the triangular island with Bel Forno Café, could be made into a new green open space- a mini park or “commons”- with paths, trees (existing) and picnic benches. Farmer’s Markets could still be held here. At other times it could be a perfect place to eat pizza, (which is particularly needed for the overflow of customers from the Cheese Board), drink coffee or even play a game of chess. It would be a safe, relatively quiet, green space, in the midst of our urban neighborhood. As shown in the drawing, Shattuck Ave., between Vine and Rose, (in front of CVS Pharmacy and to the east side of Bel Forno Café) would become two narrowed one-way streets, each on one side of the commons and each with one lane for traffic plus parking on one side. These narrowed streets might be paved in something like cobblestone, with an pleasing aesthetic quality that would also signify that this is a slow speed, pedestrian area. Most traffic could be easily diverted to Shattuck Place, which joins Henry at Rose. As an option to replace the parking that would be lost along the sides of the present center median, which would no longer exist, some arrangement might be made with CVS for a parking structure to be built in their lot. Underground parking might be another option to replace the lost spaces. A façade facing the green space could be designed for public art that would hide or camouflage the parking lot and enhance the outdoor experience. I’m sure there will be many different reactions to this design plan, but I thought most people in the neighborhood would like it, so I’m putting it out to see what comes of it. I have no investment in it other than my time and my own desire to see more open green space in my neighborhood, as more development inevitably occurs.

Thanks for looking, Fran Segal Artist, Designer, Psychologist [email protected] 510-549-1231


July 8, 2010 Stephen Wollmer 1823 'B' Berkeley Way Berkeley, CA 94703 (510) 843-2053 [email protected] Mayor Bates and Berkeley City Council Re June 29, 2010 Affordable Housing Workshop: proposal for a local Density Bonus Ordinance (Attachment 1) At the June 29th workshop on Affordable Housing, the City's Planning Director proposed that the City enact a local density bonus ordinance including the option for developer payment of an in-lieu fee to the Housing Trust Fund in exchange for additional density bonus units, waivers of development standards and incentives/concessions. In effect establishing a City-wide system of various Zoning Indulgences1 in exchange for cash. Zoning Ordinance development standards are just that, written standards enforcing community expectations in a transparent and legally binding pattern of allowable development within a district. Development standards must be waived by the City when they physically preclude an affordable housing project's entitlement to additional units and incentives as required by the State density bonus law. That the City now proposes to waive them in exchange for in-lieu payments to the Housing Trust Fund is very troubling; furthermore this proposal appears to contravene two important provision of State planning and zoning law: Firstly, State law makes it clear that density bonuses are available only to projects which include affordable units within the project, and specifically prohibits localities from offering benefits that would undermine this purpose:

§65917 In enacting this chapter it is the intent of the Legislature that the density bonus or other incentives offered by the city, county, or city and county pursuant to this chapter shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in proposed housing developments. In the absence of an agreement by a developer in accordance with Section 65915, a locality shall not offer a density bonus or any other incentive that would undermine the intent of this chapter.

Secondly, although local density bonus ordinances are specifically allowed by §65915 (n), this must be interpreted in a manner that complies with the Legislature's intent, the overall scheme of density bonus law, and the subdivision's specific limitation on local density bonuses for projects which do not qualify under the State density bonus law:

§65915 (n) If permitted by local ordinance, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a city, county, or city and county from granting a density bonus greater than what is described in this section for a development that meets the requirements of this section or from granting a proportionately lower density bonus than what is required by this section for developments that do not meet the requirements of this section.

The threshold question for any local density bonus ordinance is what is a proportionately lower density bonus when the number of units provided within the project is zero. As a proportionate density bonus calculation necessarily requires a dividend, and zero cannot serve as a dividend, State law does not allow a local ordinance that grants a project density bonus units or other incentives when no lower income units are actually supplied within the project, making the City's proposal for allowing in-lieu payments in exchange for density bonus units or other incentives counter to State law. CC: Planning and Housing Advisory Commissions; City Attorney

1 Indulgences were "Get out of Jail Free" cards issued by the Catholic Pope in Rome for certain 'financial' remunerations, that allowed you to THINK you were buying your way into Heaven.. Every sin had a price tag. Venal ones were so much, mortal ones were a bit more, etc.. You could sin all you wanted, and if you had the money, you could buy your 'forgiveness'..this tended to allow the rich and powerful to be slightly less Christian than they should have been, at the expense of the poor and powerless. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_sale_of_indulgences

Communication - Wollmer Planning Commission July 28, 2010

1. Develop a local density bonus program The City can develop a local density bonus program that developers would elect to use instead of the state density bonus law because it offers sufficient incentives beyond those available under the state law. Because staff believes that this type of program, properly structured, has the most potential to be an effective inducement for affordable housing, staff is recommending it be part of the short-term incentive program, albeit recognizing that it will be a very complex program to develop. Without the “encouragement” of the City’s inclusionary requirements, it is not clear that developers in Berkeley will take advantage of existing State provisions that give “density bonuses” (more market-rate units) in exchange for the provision of affordable housing. Although staff has not undertaken a comprehensive review of the issue, it is commonly accepted that State density bonus law has not proven particularly effective by itself in encouraging developers to include affordable housing in their developments. Under the City’s existing (now invalid) inclusionary requirements for rental projects, developers in Berkeley usually took advantage of several provisions of State law that were advantageous to their projects because local law very closely coincided with the provisions of State law granting those advantages. Those advantages included a very limited ability of the City to deny such projects, and a requirement that the City provide various incentives, including additional units and the provision of other concessions and waivers of zoning ordinance provisions. The City’s zoning ordinance needs to be updated to reflect current legal constraints and to codify current Density Bonus practices. Updating our density bonus ordinance in relation to State law must be included in the development of any local density bonus incentive package referred by the Council to the Planning Commission. However, the City is not limited to the minimum requirements of State law. It can adopt a local density bonus incentive program to more strongly encourage affordable housing. To be effective, a local density bonus ordinance must provide sufficient incentives to developers while also being reasonably acceptable to the community. Although it will be difficult to find the balance, it is possible for a local density bonus ordinance to encourage private developers to include affordable units and/or provide in-lieu fees (as discussed below), while also being clear (indeed, clearer than the state density bonus law) as to the standards that will be applied to density bonus projects so that the community has some understanding of the potential impacts and tradeoffs. In addition to finding a balance, the ordinance must also address the following issues: Berkeley-Specific Density bonus incentives. Existing State Density bonus law already confers on developers the ability to depart from zoning regulations when they elect to undertake a Density Bonus project. To increase certainty both for developers and the community, the City could set forth the specific modifications that would be allowed in exchange for affordable housing. The modifications in standards could vary, for example, depending on Zoning District and/or adjacency of residential zoning. The City could also specify the preferred concessions and incentives to which developers are entitled under the state density bonus law. Availability of in-lieu fee. An in-lieu fee differs from a nexus fee because it would apply only to projects that elect to pay the fee in return for incentives provided under a local density bonus ordinance. An in-lieu fee would be in addition to a nexus fee which would be required of all rental housing projects, and is not currently available to state density bonus projects (which must provide units). Under this concept, developers would receive a density bonus (additional units, and/or concessions, and/or waiver of zoning requirements) and would have the option of providing an in-lieu fee rather than the required percentage of affordable units. Additional analysis would be needed to establish the in-lieu fee. The fee would be deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fun to be used in support of the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. Should the Council support establishment of a local density bonus program, Staff recommends exploring an in-lieu fee option. Staff believes that an economic analysis would be necessary to determine what package of incentives would prove most effective as part of a local density bonus program. Staff would also propose undertaking some “scenario” evaluation so that we can test the impacts of various standards modifications.

ATTACHMENT 1

Communication - Wollmer Planning Commission July 28, 2010

regular meeting of the planning commission this … · 7/28/2010 · public comment: comments on...

Documents