Page One

The mayor’s committee charged with cleaning up pesky development issues has just published its first draft. 

Since the group appointed by Tom Bates is heavily weighted with pro-development members, one can expect their recommendations will very likely reduce the ability of the public to have meaningful input. 

As was pointed out by members of the community some time ago, it was finally acknowledged that city planners had used fuzzy zoning when they granted State Density Bonuses to big box developers. The plain fact of the matter is that residential units in mixed-use R-3, R-4 and R-5 zones have no maximum number of units per building site. 

One wonders how the staff could have then determined a Density Bonus of 20 percent extra units beyond what is permitted, without having any real numbers serving as a base from which to make calculations. This situation causes great uncertainty and trouble—as the committee now realizes.  

One suggested way to patch up the inconsistency is to convince the lawmakers in Sacramento to accept Berkeley’s fuzzy zoning and make it legal. Berkeley could do as other cities have done and have the number of units permitted on each building site clearly specified in the zoning ordinance. 

The report contains news about a state bill already passed (Dutra AB-2392). It mandates that if densities are reduced in one area of the city, they must 

be increased in other areas. 

This is a problem for Berkeley because area plans for University Avenue and West Berkeley, though approved in the General Plan, have not had zoning ordinance changes in their unit density. The city has delayed acting for years. Is it now so late that the changes cannot still be made? 

The committee report wants more development and uses to be granted with a Zoning Certificate (ZC). That means there will be no notice to neighbors, no public hearings and no right of appeal. One suggestion is to allow construction of a single family house with only a ZC, if the footprint and height of the structure is smaller than current building standards. Where is the public’s right to have meaningful input? 

In several instances, the draft report refers to citizen’s comments about gross development as “acrimonious” (“harshness of temper, manner or speech”).  

It is to be expected that members of the public most immediately affected by detrimental aspects of a project would be critical in no uncertain terms. In fact, the neighbors have been well organized, well prepared and often correct in their criticisms. Describing their presentations of the opposition as “acrimony” is insulting, to say the least! 

One element causing problems not covered in the report is the propensity of developers to knowingly submit projects that far exceed the city’s building 

standards.  

For example: 1) Not allowing for necessary open space; 2) reducing the number of parking spaces for residents and shoppers; 3) encroaching on required set back from single family homes; 4) building heights that are out of scale and detrimental to adjacent communities. 

Developers know the zoning system very well and have exploited it to the maximum. 

Let it be noted that the report proposes some hopeful changes. For example, 1) notifying the community much earlier in the permitting process for large developments; 2) sharing information about staff meetings with developers, 3) putting up large, durable notice signs on project sites that illustrate the scale of the structure. 

Many thanks to the volunteer neighborhood supporters who attended meeting after meeting even though they were not appointed to the committee. The draft report will now be examined by various commissions for possible implementation.  

Will there be a public hearings? Ask your mayor. 

Martha Nicoloff is a former member of the Zoning Adjustment Board, the Planning Commission and is the author of the Neighborhood Preservation Initiative.