Page One

Shortly after the clock struck midnight Wednesday, the City Council breathed new life into a pedestrian bridge proposed to rise 21 feet above Hearst Avenue. 

By a 6-3 vote (Wozniak, Spring and Olds, no) the council gave UC Berkeley conditional approval to build the bridge connecting dormitories at the Foothill Housing Complex. But before the council relinquishes the city’s air rights over Hearst Avenue, it is demanding that the university indemnify the city against a lawsuit threatened by a local property owner opposed to the project. 

The council rejected a second proposed condition: to lease the air rights to the university only at a yet-to-be-determined fair market price. 

The council also voted Tuesday to raise taxpayers’ sewer fees by 3 percent and to charge UC Berkeley sewer fees based on usage instead of accepting the current flat fee. UC has argued that it’s not legally required to pay the full cost of its sewer use. 

In other matters, the council overturned the structure of merit designation of Celia’s Mexican Restaurant, a building at Fourth and Addison streets which is scheduled for demolition to make way for a new condominium project. The council also requested that the school district hold off on choosing a new site for the city’s warm water pool.  

Additionally the council held a two-and-a-half hour public hearing on cuts in funding for community agencies. The agencies brought so many of their clients and supporters to the meeting that at one point while the council was in session more than 100 people, denied entry to the capacity-filled chambers, clamored outside Old City Hall. 

Foothill Bridge 

The council vote to allow the bridge was a split decision for UC Berkeley. The university has sought city permission for the air rights over Hearst Avenue at La Loma Avenue for nearly 20 years, contending that it wants to improve pedestrian safety for students and improve access to the La Loma dormitory on the north side of Hearst for disabled students. 

The university has agreed to pay Berkeley $200,000 for the right to build over a city street, and to ask the city to approve the bridge design. 

UC Berkeley planner Jennifer Lawrence said the university would probably have to ask the UC Regents for authority to repay the city for any losses which result from lawsuits now threatened against the proposed bridge. A possible plaintiff is New Education Development Systems, Inc, an organization with ties to the Unification Church headed by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, which owns a landmarked building at 2717 Hearst Ave., just uphill from the proposed bridge. 

The group’s attorney, Alan Seher, said that the university did not legally qualify for the encroachment permit under city law because it would not be “substantially damaged” if the city refused. On the issue of whether UC Berkeley had adequately studied alternatives to the bridge, he said that he’d found information that the university had a network of underground tunnels, including one under Gayley Road adjacent to the Foothill complex.  

Seher said that even though the council attached a condition to the permit, the vote triggered a 90-day window for his client to file suit against the city independent of the UC Regents’ vote on whether to indemnify the city. 

“The city I don’t think was thinking very clearly when they voted to demand the university to indemnify them,” he said, explaining that if the UC Regents declined the city could still face a lawsuit. 

UC students in attendance supporting the bridge plan cheered the council vote. Councilmember Gordon Wozniak, the council’s biggest proponent of the bridge, was resolutely against adding the indemnification clause and stormed out of the council chambers after the vote. He did not return for the remainder of the meeting. 

Also dissatisfied with the vote was Jim Sharp who lives near the proposed bridge site and has opposed the project. 

“The council is still giving [the air rights] away,” he said. “Had they gotten a bigger pot of money then maybe there would be some justice to this.” 

With only four votes in favor, the council failed to pass a proposal from Councilmember Kriss Worthington to add a second condition to the variance ordering UC Berkeley to pay an undetermined fair market value for the air rights over Hearst. Joining Worthington in support of the proposal were councilmembers Dona Spring, Betty Olds and Max Anderson. 

“I think this is a joke that we’re going to get a measly $200,000 and then we’re going to get sued,” Olds said, directing her anger at UC officials. “I can’t believe what a bunch of namby pambies you all are.” 

But City Manager Phil Kamlarz said that it would be difficult to assess the fair market value of air rights. 

Councilmember Linda Maio said charging fair market value for the rights might be too big a burden for the university. 

“We don’t want to have so many conditions that we’re denying it,” she said. 

Sewer Fees 

By a 8-1 vote (Worthington, no) the council voted to raise residents’ sewer fees 3 percent and also to charge sewer usage fees to UC Berkeley for the first time. When the council held a public hearing on the fees two weeks ago UC Berkeley attorney Jason Houghton, of Thelen Rein & Priest, argued that the action was illegal because the university and city have a 15-year agreement on sewers that hasn’t expired yet, and that as a state entity UCB is exempt from the type of fees the city sought to charge.  

Currently UC Berkeley pays a flat $470,000 for sewer services under an agreement which expires June 30. Under the new fee schedule, the university might pay as much as $2.18 million for operation, maintenance and replacement costs. 

Councilmember Worthington said he was concerned that the wording of the new fee schedule might give city officials too much leeway to charge public agencies like the university less than a fair market price. He also wanted to know whether the new fee schedules would affect the ability of taxpayers, including homeowners and businesses, to sue the city or university for in effect making them subsidize the university’s sewer costs.  

Celia’s Landmarking 

The developer of a condominium project has one less hurdle to overcome now that the council overturned the structure of merit designation for 2040 Fourth St. (Celia’s Mexican Restaurant). Had the council allowed the decision of the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission to stand, Urban Housing Group would have needed Zoning Adjustment Board approval to demolish the building. 

The landmarks commission had asked the council to remand the designation back to them in light of findings from Urban Housing Group’s consultant Jay Turnbull that the architect who designed Celia’s, Irwin Johnson, had designed 11 other buildings in Berkeley. 

“We find it fascinating to have new information,” said Landmarks Commissioner Leslie Emmington, arguing for the commission to take a second look at the designation. Noting that a 1985 survey of West Berkeley classified the building as significant, Emmington held that the proposed development had not influenced the commission’s vote. She also questioned why planning staff was recommending that the commission’s 5-4 vote be overturned. 

Addressing the council, Turnbull, an architectural historian said that Celia’s was not one of Johnson’s most important works and that the building had undergone extensive interior and exterior alterations. 

With hardly any debate, the council voted 7-1-1 (Worthington, no; Olds, abstain) to overturn the ruling. Olds hinted she might have joined the majority if they had a longer discussion. 

“I know we’re in a hurry today, but this is awfully important,” she said. 

Warm Water Pool 

At 12:29 a.m. Wednesday the council voted to request Berkeley Unified not to choose a location for a new warm water pool, a popular recreation facility for disabled residents, until the council reviews its options. On May 11 the school board is scheduled to vote on a plan to move the pool from Berkeley High’s Old Gym to the tennis courts across Milvia Street. The project is expected to cost about $7 million, however the city only has $3.25 million committed to the project. 

The council rejected a proposal from Councilmember Spring to ask the district to put $1 million towards the project. 

Funding For Community Non-profits 

Representatives of 30 Berkeley non-profits paraded before the council asking them to soften proposed cuts to their groups by transferring money currently recommended for capital projects like street repairs. 

Berkeley non-profits are facing tough times. With the city looking to close an $8.9 million structural deficit, City Manager Phil Kamlarz has proposed cutting funding to community agencies by a total of nine percent. Adding to the pain, the Bush administration has cut federal programs the city uses to fund the groups as well. 

On May 10, the council is scheduled to approve allocating more than $5 million in federal funds to local non-profits. The council plans to approve over $4 million in allocations from the city’s $115 million general fund when the council adopts its budget in June. 

The city manager’s recommendations target reductions based on performance. Not surprisingly those groups facing steeper cuts urged the council to restore their funding. 

“We’re not very happy about being treated inequitably,” said Marty Lynch, director of Lifelong Medical. The group’s acupuncture detox clinic has been targeted for a 20 percent cut that Lynch said would be a crippling blow. 

Moe Wright of Chaplaincy for the Homeless, which runs a homeless youth drop in center, questioned why overall funds for homeless youth were proposed to be slashed 40 percent.  

“Why make homeless youth a priority and then cut it more than other services?” he asked. 

?