Page One

A packed house loaded with questions about UC Berkeley’s new role in the downtown planning process greeted City Planner Dan Marks and Tom Lollini, his university counterpart, at the Planning Commission Wednesday. 

The occasion was the commission’s first discussion of the implications of the May 25 accord between the city and the university, reached as a settlement of the city’s suit challenging the legality of the school’s 2020 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP). 

By the time the discussion finished more than 90 minutes later, the only firm decision reached had been to continue the issue at the commission’s next meeting on July 27. 

The audience, which included members of the School and Zoning Adjustments Boards, the Landmarks Preservation, Housing Advisory and Peace and Justice Commissions and a host of well-known activists, made their skepticism clear from the onset. 

Because their comments were limited to the outset of the meeting, they weren’t able to address the duo directly—reluctantly leaving that job to the commissioners themselves. 

The two principal sources of alarm involved the city’s surrender of autonomy in the downtown planning process, and the creation of a greatly enlarged “downtown planning area” formed to include the university’s area of potential interest. 

While the maximum north/south reach of the current irregular downtown plan is a seven block stretch along Shattuck Avenue and Oxford/Fulton Street, the new rectangular planning area extends from Hearst Avenue on the north to Dwight Way on the South. 

The current east/west maximum is a three-and-a-half block stretch from Oxford Street to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, while the new western boundary extends for the entire 11-block north-south dimension. 

Landmarks Preservation Commission Chair Jill Korte, who said she had been stunned to find that the new planning area came within two blocks of her home, said she was concerned about the potential impact on the historic character of the city center. 

School Board member John Selawsky began by declaring that while he couldn’t speak for the board itself, many members agreed with him that “the City Council seems to have abrogated its authority, so it’s important that this commission (planning) exerts its own.”  

He singled out clause L of the city/UC agreement, which states that the Downtown Area Plan authorized in the pact “shall be comprehensive, and shall encompass the entire scope of future downtown development, including all public and private landowners and developers. . .” 

“On the face of it, it’s unenforceable,” said Selawsky, noting the presence in the planning area of institutions like Vista College, the property of another governmental agency which would answer only to the state, not to either the city or the university. 

“This settlement has basically eliminated you and the rest of us from what’s happening in Berkeley,” said Zoning Adjustments Board member Dean Metzger. 

“(City) staff and the University of California will try to bully you into doing whatever they want to do,” he said. “You are representatives of us as citizens of Berkeley and we’re here to get you to act that way. It’s up to you to decide what’s right or wrong.” 

Clifford Fred, a longtime Berkeley activist who has served on both the planning and landmarks commissions, denied that the current Downtown Plan was out of date. 

When the City Council adopted the current General Plan in December 2002, he said, “they pointedly reaffirmed the height limits and boundaries of the Downtown Plan, despite the recommendations of the city manager to increase the height limits.” 

Fred said he saw the new city/UCB accord as “a deal to get high-rises built throughout Central Berkeley and destroy the character of the downtown.” 

Jesse Arreguin, a member of the Housing Advisory Commission, spoke in his role as civic affairs director of the Associated Students of the University of California. 

“This agreement does not represent the interests of the students and the community,” he said, urging planning commissioners “to be very cautious and deliberate.” 

Several speakers specifically called for a public participation forum modeled on the UC Hotel Task Force, a panel formed by the planning commission to make recommendations to the university on their as-yet-unrealized plans to build a 12-story hotel and accompanying conference center at the northeast corner of the Shattuck Avenue/Center Street intersection. 

Actor Gregory Pedemonte, play in the role of a planning bureaucrat, offered a moment of comic relief as he read from a script about the agreement which used planners’ characteristic upbeat language, with various audience members tossing back equally scripted cynical quips about their concerns. 

It took Chair Harry Pollack a moment to catch on to the joke and stop telling the interrupters to play by the rules.  

Marks and Lollini 

Once the public had their say, Planning Commission Pollack handed the floor over to Marks and Lollini.  

Marks said he was there to offer “some very preliminary thoughts,” adding that he and Lollini have had little time to address the implications of the pact. 

“We are just getting started, and there is no agenda here, at least on the staff’s part,” he said. 

Marks said the expanded area was created because the newly included properties are affected by what happens in the downtown. 

When he added that “the university’s interest extends beyond downtown,” he drew a burst of applause from the audience, which in turn earned another admonition from Pollack. 

Marks noted that the agreement calls for creation of still-to-be-defined “development envelopes and design guidelines,” which several members of the public had questioned earlier in the evening. 

Noting that the LRDP calls for creation of 1200 parking spaces, Marks said the “vast majority” would be created in downtown Berkeley, though just where has yet to be determined. 

The plans also calls for 1.2 million square feet of new construction in Berkeley itself. (A second plan calls for nearly double that at the UCB Richmond Field Station.) 

Marks said the planning process is scheduled within a four-year framework, with the first six months spent on a work plan that will require approvals both from the City Council and the office of UC Chancellor Robert Berdahl. 

“There will be a three-and-a-half year group work program with some kind of community participation,” Marks added, noting that Mayor Tom Bates favors something modeled on the current city Creeks Task Force that would include one member appointed by each city councilmember as well as various stakeholders. 

Besides the council appointees, that task force includes members from several city commissions and one member each appointed by property owners and by creeks advocates. 

Helen Burke, a creeks advocate on the planning commission, said she favored the UC Hotel Task Force model. 

Marks said planning commissioners would probably have their own ideas as well, which they could forward on to the City Council. 

“There’s clearly a spirit of cooperation,” said Lollini, calling himself and Marks “collaborators”. 

Then it was time for the commissioners to ask questions. 

Gene Poschman, the panel’s acknowledged policy wonk, told the pair “I appreciate your mentioning ‘public participation’ 14 times.” 

Asked how the preliminary work will occur, Marks said city and university staff would meet privately. “Secretly” was the word Poschman applied. 

Poschman noted that the public couldn’t be informed of the shape of any draft agreement unless the city and UC both agreed to its release. 

“It sounds like a gag order,” said Commissioner David Stoloff. 

Planning commissioner Sara Shumer suggested that the group promptly appoint its own subcommittee to study the implications of the agreement, but colleague Rob Wrenn said that should be done in September, after the vacation season and August recess ended. 

But Marks noted that plans called for assembling the draft work program by September, something he said was essential to accomplish the planning process in the mandatory four-year framework. 

“The consensus is that the stakeholders need to be involved,” said Commissioner David Tabb. “If we wait until September, are we limiting the nature of the framework” for involvement?  

Pollack announced he’d scheduled the continued discussion for July 27, despite Poschman’s observation that several commissioners won’t be able to attend. 

›