Page One
Letters to the Editor
UC HOTEL
Editors, Daily Planet:
With regard to the UC Berkeley’s proposed downtown hotel/conference center/museum complex, please note that earlier this year the Planning Commission established a subcommittee under General Plan Policy Land Use 17E, which reads:
Convene a Planning Commission task force to evaluate the need for and appropriateness of a new downtown hotel and conference center/ecological demonstration/mixed use project, taking into consideration:
1. Market demographics
2. Traffic and transit conditions
3. Hiring and employment policies
4. Public amenities and community accessibility
5. Urban design
6. Green building principles
7. Daylighting Strawberry Creek
8. Special development standards and mitigations.
The proposed development has the potential to greatly benefit the city. For it to realize that potential, the community at large must have ample opportunity to participate in the planning process. A crucial task of the Planning Commission subcommittee will be ensuring that Berkeley citizens do have such an opportunity.
As soon as the date, time and location of the subcommittee’s first meeting have been decided, the meeting will be publicly noticed by City of Berkeley staff.
Zelda Bronstein, Chair
Berkeley Planning Commission
•
UNFAIR ARTICLE
Editors, Daily Planet:
I have generally found the articles in the Daily Planet to be fair, so I was dismayed to read Mr. Artz’ negative characterization of Ms. Sun today (“Shattuck Developer Violates Order, Council to Take Action,” Daily Planet, Nov. 21-24). The “investigation” he refers to must be the Zoning Adjustments Board meeting, where her permit was temporarily revoked. It was not proven at that time that Ms. Sun intends to create a group living accommodation without a use permit. It is my understanding that she intends to apply for all permits (signage, food service, etc.) required when she is ready to develop to that level, and has, at this time, applied for all necessary permits required for what she is doing at this time. As an architect working with many owner-builders, I often work with people who do not want to carry out their long-term objectives right away, and obtain multiple permits on the same property as the development proceeds. Sometimes these permits are separated by years, sometimes only by months, but each one meets the legal requirements for that phase.
By the way, it seems that Mr. Lauriston’s objections are to the size and height of the project, not it’s use. The suggestion that Ms. Sun will use it for group living in the future is the only way he found to slow down this project, as the size and height are both within legal boundaries, as was confirmed by the Planning Department in the beginning. As ZAB member, Mr. Robert Allen stated in the July meeting, “this is pre-emptive thinking.” I have to agree with him that there is too much pre-emptive thinking and action going on around here, both globally and locally.
Andus Brandt, R.A.
•
RACIST RANT
Editors, Daily Planet:
In regards to the letter from Mr. Labriola (”PC Dunces,” Daily Planet, Nov. 21-24) wouldn’t a more accurate header for the letter have been “Racist Resident Whines”? Mr. Labriola apparently has a problem with people who do not look like him, or of whom he does not approve.
If this were my world there would be no wars, no suffering and I would not have to listen to or read letters from people complaining about the realities of the world today. There would also be about 34 million less Californians but that is a topic for another letter. I have reconciled myself to the realities of the world that I don’t care for and I do what I can to either change those realities or learn to live with them as best as I can. Mr. Labriola is unaware of or chooses to ignore the millions of Caucasians who have moved to California in the last four decades. Or, perhaps in his narrow world view, hordes of white people do nothing to affect the quality of life in California. I wonder if Mr. Labriola is a native of California?
Matt Roman
•
PLANNING AHEAD
Editors, Daily Planet:
I was pleased and surprised to read the joint announcement, by Mayor Bates and UC, of plans to build a hotel and conference center on the Bank of America property. This is part of a larger UC plan which involves moving the art museum, the anthropology museum and the film archive downtown; the museums will replace the UC printing plant and the parking lot at Addison and Oxford streets. I also hear the Magnes Jewish museum is planning a downtown move. Even Freight & Salvage will have a bigger building in the arts district.
Having all this great stuff close together downtown will be very nice. The whole package—hotel, museums, arts district and restaurants—will make Berkeley a great draw for conferences.
The new hotel and museum buildings could be demonstration sites for green building and ecological urban design. This project is a great opportunity to do great green things while bringing some business into downtown.
Before this dream becomes reality, we have to deal with a few political problems: taxes, parking and the creek.
Why does UC have to own the property? We definitely don’t need another tax-free edifice draining the city’s operating funds. If the hotel will be commercial, let it pay commercial taxes. There will be revenue from the hotel tax; it better turn out to more than cover the loss in property tax revenue. Does UC plan to buy up the Durant and Shattuck hotels too? Maybe UC wants to go into hotel business—maybe offer a major in hotel management like Cornell does?
The museums could pay taxes too. In their new locations, as tourist traps, they might take in enough money to pay taxes, or pay something in lieu of taxes.
An underground parking garage was mentioned. Will this be a wet garage? The durable blue line down Center Street reminds us that Strawberry Creek flows nearby, beneath the city. Creek water was going to make trouble for the underground parking once proposed under Civic Center. Won’t the same problem arise at the Bank of America site?
Let’s bring the creek to the surface. The hotel would look great with a babbling brook in the yard. With big money available for the hotel project, surely a piece of it could be dedicated to the long-desired daylighting of Strawberry Creek.
The conference center shouldn’t need much parking. Given the center’s location within feet of the downtown BART station, visitors arriving by air can ride BART directly from either OAK or SFO. UC’s bus service is nearby; conference visitors won’t need a car to visit campus. If visitors need a rental car for some side-trip, they can get one at the hotel, from City Car Share, or one of the agencies.
Maybe the hotel can get by with minimal parking. We sure don’t want to increase Berkeley’s car congestion. I say forget about that underground parking garage. After the city gets done implementing the recommendations of the Traffic Demand Management study, there will be more downtown parking spaces available for the hotel. Berkeley residents will free up the spaces by using transit instead of monthly parking. Evening restaurant and theater goers will come by bus. Maybe the hotel could sell transit passes to visitors.
Another idea: As part of this project, Center Street could be made into a pedestrian mall. A start has been made; several restaurants in the area have deployed sidewalk tables. The pedestrian mall and the sidewalk cafes would be yet another component of the great Berkeley Visitor Center.
What a vision: a green, transit-oriented, pedestrian friendly tax-revenue-generating conference and visitor center for Berkeley.
Steve Geller
•
OUTSOURCING
Editors, Daily Planet:
Although my bumber sticker says “Bring the troops and jobs home,” the fact that my retirement cap was 52 percent of my salary caused me to wonder, should Berkeley “outsource” its jobs to India to balance the budget, rather than continue to support a bloated city staff who have salaries way over the area average by increasing our taxes far beyond the surrounding communities’ average?
Jeanne Burdette
