I say no

My concern is that there are no guaruntees that the owner will remain in business with the Hardware store, thus we cannot evaulate the two business opportunites (hardware and housing unit rentals) as combined.

On its own, Hardware is apparently not enough of a viable business at this location. As a community member, I favor having a hardware store like most of my neighbors do, but all that is just principal (as would be any vote cast on that basis since we apparently wander over to the store for the occoassion light bulb only). Clearly, not enough people are truly willing to back it up by opening their wallets enough to actually make the hardware store a viable business, so those who want in in the neighborhood are not really willing or enough in number to support it economically. Ultimately, economic forces will win out and it will close. Again, there is no reason or guaruntee that this owner will stay in business.

The question for me is thus reduced to...should anyone be allowed to build 4 units on the strip, period. In my opinion, I think that would depend on the zoning. If the city plan is truly a reflection of the pluralistic aspirations of the people in the city, then there is reason for not allowing such use. A variance should only be granted if economic hardship is proven, or if there is reason to believe a deviation from the permitted use is in the publics best interest. Does this really qualify for either? Will these owners truly starve, or if this was in the publics best interest, wouldn't our money do the talking?

I am concerned we will wind up with 4 housing units, no Hardware store, and other existing businesses lining up to add residential units too. A tone will be set. I can just see all the construction and disparate development eveolve. We may very well lose the charm of our little strip as well as the Hardware store!

I say no

Many of the people who voted in favor of the variance say that they want to keep the hardware store. We ALL want to keep the hardware store. What's more, we all want to keep the small businesses that make the Elmwood unique. That's why I'm voting "No."

If this variance is allowed, then why shouldn't other property owners in the Elmwood present the same arguments and be granted the same privilege? The City can't show favoritism to one property owner. We ought to be looking at the possible consequences to the Elmwood as a whole.

In the short term, construction will drive customers away. In the long term, the outlook is worse. It is my understanding that we don't have commercial rent control in California, so landlords may raise the rents on tenant businesses to cover building costs. If that happens, either the expenses will be passed onto us at the cash register or the businesses will be forced out. Either way we lose. And if landlords decide to profit from the new construction and sell their buildings, the new owners will charge higher rents to their commercial tenants. That's going to drive out some of the very stores we hope to save.

Do we have a guarantee that the hardware store will stay if the variance is allowed? We have what seems to be an implicit threat of losing the hardware store without the variance, but if it is granted and the property becomes more valuable, isn't there a risk that the building will be sold and that another business will take its place? I think we deserve some sort of binding promise that the building and business won't be sold for some period of time, if the variance is allowed. We don't have that.

We also deserve to understand how other properties may be affected. We came very close to losing the Post Office this year. What would happen if the owners of that building asked for the same variance that Tad wants? It's hard to believe that a federal agency could be placed in a building with apartments above, given security concerns. The Post Office would have to go.

Now think about the other businesses that give the Elmwood its unique character. Could they afford the rents that would be needed to finance this expansion? What would the Elmwood be without them?

I say no

The Elmwood is a lovely low-scale neighborhood that is already overutilitezed. The area needs to be protected. If that one building is allowed to expand the pressure to expand other buildings in the neighborhood will increase and the character of the neighborhood will become more urban, more like San Francisco and less like the Elmwood.

I say no

As a long time employee in the Elmwood I do not feel the addition of housing units would be a asset to the shopping district. The construction would be disruptive to business, and put a strain on the already conjested traffic and parking. It would also set a precedent, where will I work while my landlord builds apartments on the top of my store?

I say no

This could result in more empty stores on College Ave. Tad is one of the very few who owns his building, as most businesses in the Elmwood rent their space. Many of the landlords are absentee and some do not live in California. The fragility of our shopping district could easily be upset by allowing a 2nd story on this building because other landlords may want to cash in on the real estate opportunity and add 2nd stories as well. The businesses below would suffer irreparably during many months/years of construction on new foundations, plumbing, wiring and sewage which would be needed to accommodate new overhead units. The affected stores below probably could not survive and would close or relocate.
Changes in the zoning ordinance must be granted based on the needs of the bulding OVER THE LONG TERM, and not granted based on the needs of a particular business operator. While the hardware store may be here today, we NO assurances it will be here in the future. Tad's request to change the floor area ratio (FAR) from .8 to 1.8 is overkill. I would like to see a good hardware store in our neighborhood, but I am NOT in favor of making sweeping exceptions to our zoning laws which may have damaging side effects to other businesses. Other options for the hardware store should be seriously considered that do not cause detriment to the rest of the business district.

I say no

That is a shopping area not a residental dont change it

I say no

I want to respond to the article's list of "Pros" - reasons in favor of the variance of the zoning ordinance.

*Stated under the Pros - Elmwood Hardware is an anchor store in the Elmwood district and most of the people in favor of the variance want to "Save Elmwood Hardware". However, there is no guarantee that this will stay as a hardware store.

*Changing the ordinance WILL change the character of the Elmwood and will make the neighborhood less stable. This will be a 3-story building in a district of 2-story buildings. Other building owners are likely to want to enlarge their buildings and increase their profits. Long-time businesses will be affected and may have to leave or close.

*If other buildings in the Elmwood already exceed the current floorspace zoning limits - they did so without adding a third story to the existing building.

*Mr.Laird believes that the site lacks the parking required to have a sucessful hardware store. After he adds 4 apartments with a total of 7 bedrooms there will be even more competition for parking.

I think most people have supported this project because they want to keep the hardware store in the neighborhood and they like Tad Laird and I agree! However I don't believe allowing the 4 apartments are necessary for his success. I do believe it will hurt the nearby merchants while this large project is under construction. It will definitly make parking even more difficult for customers to compete with residents. The Elmwood needs walk-by business but it also needs the parking to encourage others to come to our beautiful district.

I say no

Mr. Laird purchased a multiple (3-4) store building at half of market value
a couple of years ago, and therefore already has a substantial profit built
into the ownership and operation of his business. Furthermore, it seems the
debt service on the mortgage of the building is less than the rents he
receives from his two tenants, meaning that he has little or no overhead in
the operation of his business. Variances, like the one he is applying for,
are supposed to be based on economic hardship, which seems not to be the
case here. Mr. Laird has a plan to reorganize his building to set up the
stores (including the hardware store) in a way that will make them even more
effective. He even has a plan to change the operating mix of goods in the
hardware store which is intelligent and should greatly increase the
desirability and profitability of his operation as well as enhance the
shopping needs of the surrounding community. It is hard to understand how
the addition of three condo units is necessary to prevent the closure of the
hardware store.
The increased elevation of the building will adversely impact the homeowners
behind him. The plan for handling the increased parking these units will
bring is being addressed by his contention that future owners/ tenants will
have only one or no cars...an unlikely scenario. If this variance is granted
certainly every other property owner will want to do the same and the entire
nature of the Elmwood will be altered forever.
Mr. Laird's plan will affect his merchant neighbors in that he will need
more than the three parking spaces available to him for the employees of the
stores presently occupying his building. The extension of the building in
the back lot will hamper or eliminate access to the other buildings by
delivery and garbage trucks presently servicing these businesses and may
prevent emergency vehicles such as fire trucks from accessing the back lot
area. Will the additional units have serious impact on sewage and utilities
and would many such other units in the neighborhood have that kind of
adverse impact on sewage etc.?
Mr. Laird has also proposed the alteration of the ordinances presently
presenting an impediment to his plans and should such alteration be allowed
the door will be open for anyone to do this without the process of
submitting for the variance eliminating any input from the community.
These and other sub-issues should be brought out and opened up for public
input from the neighborhood associations as well as merchants and the zoning
board and council members before any more support is given to this plan.

I say no

I have immense gratitude to BEH, from the Bolfings themselves thru Bob and Jeanette to Tad. The Store is vastly more than 'convenient' to me. It is/has been, theraputic!
However, I beleieve that this issue [and the vitality of our dear Elmwood] require a Zoning revamp.
Variance would be unfair to other owners and/or establish a willy nilly precedent.
The 'Pro's and 'Con's are very weak or faulty and there are major unmentioned potentially significant impacts and considerations [such as parking / traffic and the inability of an owner to commit to a long term continuation of 'the hardware store we love'.
In a cold and objective view, a variance would entitle the land owner to a major enhancement of land value [even if the improvements were not made]. Rezoning/Replanning, which I feel is in order for much more comprehensive factors, could in contrast to a variance, at least level the field in those two blocks.

I say no

The whole ordinace was added to protect Ozzie's Fountain and its 1940's appeal. That was a misguided concept at the time and is still today. I remember it is rent control for the area, no other commercial area in Berkeley has such a thing. The variance should be denied becuase who ever bought the hardware store knew what he was getting in to.
Also, the whole thing should be repealed so the free market can work, even in Berkeley. Besides going there is difficult because of the parking issue and once you are there prices are much higher than even Berkeley Hardware. So, I say no!

I say no

The owner has not owned the store very long. He knew the environmet well when he purchased and now he wants to be a developer and take avantage of the real estate values of the area. Opening the door to increased housing units above retail will change the character of the area. Where is the off street parking for the units? We will be seeing live/work lofts next? Though the business has existed for generations, I beleive that a small retail establishment can survive in that square footage, even if it is not a hardware store! Changing the neighborhood to protect one, so called, old time business is dangerous.

I say no

This is a commercial area and if they leave then another store can move in and area will remain commercial

I say no

I say no

I say no

I say no