Features

The Planning Commission took a baby step Wednesday towards capping the size of future developments on University Avenue. 

After its second public hearing in three weeks, the commission formally asked the city planning staff to return next month with the study of a revised zoning plan for University that would prohibit a state rule promoting dense housing development from swelling housing projects beyond the limits now set in the avenue’s strategic plan.  

Staff and commission members agreed Wednesday tha t a recommendation to the council from the commission on revisions to the University Avenue Strategic Plan would now not be ready until July, at the earliest. 

The commission will reopen the public hearing at its next meeting April 28 and receive a new an alysis from staff at their May 5 meeting. 

Richard Graham of Plan Berkeley applauded the commission’s action. He, like many other University Avenue area neighbors, had argued that the staff proposal originally presented to the Planning Commission last mon th would promote oversized buildings that push against neighboring homes and lack viable parking and retail space. Some neighbors called that original proposal “too pro-development.” 

Two developers in attendance at Wednesday’s commission meeting, Evan Ma cDonald and Chris Hudson, formerly of Panoramic Interests, warned after the hearing that if the requested revised zoning plan were ever implemented it would “stop private development on University Avenue.”  

However, MacDonald had already issued that same “stop development” charge during the hearing against the original staff proposal. 

Zoning on University emerged as a hot button issue last February when the Mayor’s Task Force on Permitting and Development made new zoning rules for University one of its top recommendations. In February the City Council requested that the Planning Commission come up with a new zoning overlay for University by May to conform to the 1996 University Avenue Strategic Plan.  

The new zoning overlay originally proposed by city planners conforms to much of what was called for in the strategic plan. It would permit three story buildings along much of the avenue, with four stories allowed along intersections identified as having strong retail potential. The original staff proposal also includes stricter set backs included in the strategic plan to protect neighbors from being dwarfed by the new buildings. 

But most neighbors at the meeting said the proposal had a catch. 

For one, the staff plan allowed for denser development on the targeted intersections and, worse, several speakers said, it didn’t take into account a state law that allows developers to build higher and wider than the zoning ordinance permits.  

Because Berkeley requires that housing developments with more than fou r units include affordable dwellings, city developments automatically qualify for a state “density bonus” that allows a 25 percent increase in space. On University Avenue, where lots tend to be narrow and shallow, the extra space both pushes the buildings up against abutting homes and raises them an extra story. 

Dan Marks, the city planning director, said the staff zoning proposal would shrink allowable building sizes on University, but added that he couldn’t say the decrease would be enough to conform to the strategic plan when the density bonus is included. 

Bart Selden, a member of the Mayor’s Task Force On Permitting And Development, argued that since the city would be hesitant to violate the improved setbacks, bonus space would mean added height to the front of new buildings. “We’re going to have a wind tunnel,” he said. “University is going to be a shaded pedestrian-unfriendly place.” 

Responding to the neighbor’s concerns, Commissioner Susan Wengraf proposed that staff return with a revised plan t hat imposes strict limits on new developments. Her proposal would reduce allowable density at the targeted intersections and lower building heights. The intended result would be that when developers factored in the density bonus, the overall size of their project couldn’t exceed the building envelope called for in the staff plan. 

All of the commissioners did not agree that asking staff to amend the plan proposal was a good idea.  

“I think your proposal goes off the deep end,” Commissioner David Stoloff told Wengraf. He worried that her suggestion would effectively downzone the avenue and risk putting the city in violation of a 2002 California law that forbids cities from decreasing the housing capacity of one district without increasing capacity in anot her. 

Marks said the staff would study possible impacts of the state law along with the analysis of the Wengraf proposal. Figuring out how to factor in the density bonus has been tricky, he said, partly because there was no evidence that the authors of th e strategic plan—working during an era when there was little development on University—ever considered how the state rule would impact building sizes.  

Most residents and merchants who spoke at the public hearing were clear that they wanted tight control s on the size of future developments and bigger retail spaces with more parking spaces.  

Helen Lasher, of Lasher’s Electronics on University, said that recent developments have diminished on-street parking and leave so few available parking spaces for re tail shoppers that stores on the avenue aren’t viable. 

Dr. Meredith Sabini agreed that new buildings have offered a lot of new housing but very little retail to serve neighbors. 

McKinley Thompson said his private home is dwarfed by a development on Univ ersity. “I don’t like that people in the neighboring building can look down into my house.” 

Councilmember Linda Maio, who has had to recuse herself from the debate in the City Council because she lives adjacent to University Avenue, attributed the neighb orhood backlash to the Acton Court project developed by Panoramic Interests, which she said was too bulky to fit into the surrounding neighborhood. “Everyone looked at Acton Court as a template for what’s coming down the pike and they were terrified, as I was,” Maio said. 

Chris Hudson, the former Panoramic Interests developer who is still associated with Acton Court in a management capacity, acknowledged that the development didn’t rank high in the charm department. “OK, maybe we didn’t do such a good job with the architecture,” he said but added that the development had nevertheless benefited the neighborhood. 

Some residents did speak in favor of denser development. “I don’t do anything in my backyard that I don’t want anyone else to see. I don’t know what other people do,” said Joe Walton whose home is also adjacent to a University Avenue complex.  

In other business the commission voted 5-3 (Pollack, Taub, Stoloff, Perry, and Wiggins, aye and Bronstein, Wengraf and Poschman, no) to support the constr uction of a UC Berkeley pedestrian bridge across Hearst Avenue. The university has been trying to get a city encroachment waiver to build a suspension bridge linking two dormitories at the Foothill Housing Complex since the project was first proposed in 1 988. A new, scaled-down bridge has eased concerns that it will obstruct views or collapse in an earthquake, but has not won fans among design advocates. The Public Works Commission will make the ultimate recommendation to the City Council, which must dec ide on the waiver. 

Reverberations continued to flow from Councilmember Margaret Breland’s controversial move to replace Commissioner John Curl with Tim Perry. Responding to a commentary in the Berkeley Daily Planet written by Commissioner Zelda Bronstein, which he said dragged his wife’s name in the mud and labeled him as “mean and nasty,” Perry warned that if another such commentary appeared again, he would “respond in kind.”›