Page One

A current job recruitment ad for a Berkeley city planner states that in Berkeley, “planners set the pace.” As one who once thought that the citizens and their elected representatives “set the pace” in Berkeley, I ask: Is this marketing hype, wishful thinking, or remarkable honesty from our enthusiastic planners? Is our planning department really a self-directed agency intent on implementing its own vision, an extreme version of “smart growth,” instead of Berkeley’s plans and laws? Let’s see…  

Berkeley’s General Plan states: “It is not the intent of the General Plan to upzone each zoning district to the maximum allowed within the range.” But this is exactly what our planners do—routinely. 

Example 1: The now notorious “flying bungalow” at 3045 Shattuck Ave. Here staff helped the applicant turn a one-story bungalow into a three-story roominghouse design without any public review, even though most expert observers agree that the project should have been sent to a public hearing on several legal grounds. But that might have resulted in a smaller building similar to its neighbors—so why risk it? City Council was not pleased. 

Example 2: Our new planning director, Dan Marks, and others have identified the transition zone between new big buildings on transit corridors and neighborhood homes as an unresolved problem. Does our planning staff have any aesthetically or socially sensitive plan for these areas? Evidently not. In fact, they have harassed and stonewalled a popular, award-winning developer, John Coreris, who specializes in multi-unit townhouses, a type of neighborhood-friendly, affordable, moderate-density development that might be just right for some of these areas. His projects meet all the zoning and smart growth standards, but they are not big enough for our planners, who prefer to place five-story buildings with tiny apartments next to neighborhood bungalows and Victorians, with the inevitable result that the bungalows, the Victorians, and the neighborhoods will all eventually disappear. Since Mr. Marks seems open to good ideas, and since the mayor has recently expressed an interest in better development, I recommend that Mr. Marks and the mayor meet with Mr. Coreris before our “pace-setting planners” drive him out of town completely.  

Example 3: The proposed American Baptist Seminary of the West development on Benvenue Avenue near Dwight Way. This project originally required five use permits and a variance, including: a permit to demolish historical buildings on a valued historical street; a permit to convert large apartments into tiny ones; a permit to introduce offices and classrooms onto an at-risk street slated for residential protection under the Southside plan; a permit to build a new building almost five times the size of the block average; and a variance to avoid residential open space requirements. 

How did staff respond to this grandiose project requiring so many “exceptions” to our local zoning goals? Did they say to the applicant, “I’m sorry, but we cannot endorse this project”? No, they fought ferociously for the project in ways both legal and illegal. A small example of staff’s attitude: Although the building—at 65 feet—is 17 feet taller than the tallest building on the block and twice the height of the average, staff wrote that the size of the building was ”not…out of context with its surrounding neighborhood.” It perverts reality to call such an extreme mathematical outlier “in context.” Then, when it was discovered that the seminary and its project were in gross violation of the Seminary’s existing use permit, staff continued to back the project, although City Council has been less enthusiastic about it.  

Example 4: The seminary neighborhood is a classic walking neighborhood. The Urban Land Institute, a smart growth group, states that buildings “need not exceed 3 stories to accommodate compact development,” and that “primary buildings in walkable neighborhoods shall not exceed 35 feet…” Smart growth urban infill guidelines recommend more open space, more parking, smaller buildings, and greater housing variety than Berkeley’s plans, codes, and decision makers now call for, and staff constantly pushes for exceptions even to our standards. What does this mean? It means that Berkeley, which has for decades been practicing real smart growth, accommodating a much higher density than other Bay Area cities, has now adopted an untested, extreme land use policy, masochistic in the short term and damaging in the long term. Many losses will not only be damaging, they will be irreversible. 

Example 5: The city attorney’s office also has a land use agenda. One of the primary attorneys assigned to land use matters, Zachary Cowan, is past-president and current board member of the Greenbelt Alliance, a group intent on undermining local land use laws. Under these circumstances, how motivated is Mr. Cowan to fight for Berkeley’s land use plans? You decide. More than a few people question whether Mr. Cowan should be handling land use cases at all, given this apparent conflict of interest. 

Example 6: Mr. Cowan has it in for Berkeley’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO). Why has landmarking become such a hot issue? Because the state has passed a package of anti-neighborhood laws that make it almost impossible to stop bad developments; one of the few remaining tools citizens have to protect their urban environment is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is still fairly effective in protecting landmarks. Now extreme “smart growth” forces, backed by self-interested developers, are intent on eliminating this last obstacle to unexamined development. Even though landmarking is only involved in a tiny percentage of developments, and has resulted in some tasteful developments that protect Berkeley’s history, Mr. Cowan is vigorously undermining the LPO. Did City Council ask Mr. Cowan to do this?  

Ironic, isn’t it? “Smart growth” advocates claim to be environmentalists: after all, the whole point of smart growth is to save ecosystems. But CEQA is the original savior of ecosystems—including the urban ecosystem of which humans are a part. Many of us who attended the first Earth Day over 30 years ago are now shocked that people who call themselves environmentalists are fervently committed to circumventing CEQA. Even Mr. Marks (who I hope will be a moderating influence on our planning department) has publicly stated: “We’re going to look for a categorical exemption [to CEQA] for any project.” But CEQA merely requires us to study the environmental impacts of our development plans. So I can only conclude that our “pace-setting” planners don’t want anyone to know the impacts of their plans. I wonder why. Don’t you? 

Sharon Hudson is a neighbor of the Benvenue project.