Page One

Opponents of the nine-story Seagate Building, already approved by the city for a half-block frontage along Center Street in downtown Berkeley, Thursday filed a 68-page appeal asking the City Council to halt the project. 

Friends of Downtown Berkeley member Zelda Bronstein, one of the authors of the document, said the group represents a coalition of citizens concerned for the city center. 

Bronstein, former chair of the Planning Commission, and her colleagues raise a wide range of issues in the document, calling into question city policies and practices, especially the way city staff awards extra floors in exchange for providing low-income units and arts and cultural space. 

The building slated for 2041-1067 Center St., a project of a Marin County developer, would include a ground floor largely reserved as rehearsal space for Berkeley Repertory Theater, which currently rehearses in buildings which would be demolished to make way for the new high-rise. 

According to city staff estimates, one-bedroom apartments in the project would rent for an average of $1,800 and two-bedroom units for $2,500. Staff also alleges that because of high construction costs and the need to “ensure maximum revenue” for the owner, Seagate is entitled to a 102 percent density bonus—making for a 14-floor structure. 

Bronstein and her group contend that the high building costs are due to extravagant features including three levels of underground parking—far more than the city requires—negating the staff rationale. 

The appeal also cites what the group says are six specific violations of the inclusionary bonus regulations spelled out in the city housing law. 

Among the alleged violations cited are: 

• Restriction of low-income units to certain floors. 

• Allocation of fewer two-bedroom than one-bedroom units for low-income tenants. 

• Provision of smaller one- and two-bedroom units to low-income tenants than for market rate tenants. 

• The lack of permits variances required to allow these and other discrepancies with statutory requirements. 

The appeal also contends that the city staff’s application of the arts density bonus violates requirements in five specific ways. 

According to the appeal, the arts bonus has never been incorporated into city zoning statutes and thus lacks legal authority, and the Seagate’s builders never applied for the requisite use permits needed to build theatrical space. 

The appeal faults the city for granting two floors as a bonus in exchange for arts space occupying less than a full floor. It also takes issue with $450,000 in annual profits for the builder, and asserts that the bonus space allowance is invalid because the necessary use permits are absent. 

In addition, according to the appeal, the two floors granted for the arts bonus were then included in the calculation used to arrive at the inclusionary bonus. Bronstein and her allies also contend that even with bonuses, the downtown plan limits buildings in the city center to a maximum of seven floors. 

Another fault alleged is the city’s failure to establish procedures for applying and using concessions and incentives such as the density and cultural bonuses as required by Section 65915 of the Government Code. 

The appeal also charges that the project is out of compliance with both the Downtown Plan and the statutory purposes of the Central Commercial District (C-2) zoning requirements, as well as with multiple provisions of the city General Plan. 

Other alleged violations include provisions of the Creek Ordinance and transportation policies of the Land Use element of the General Plan. 

Finally, as critics of the project charged earlier, the appeal declares that the project was improperly approved because the city failed to require an Environmental Impact Report.