Public Comment

When I was invited to join the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC) last January, I thought, “What a cool name.” I thought it was pronounced dah pak, sort of hip hop sounding. And then I imagined 21 guys and gals with tattoos, bare midrifts, low slung pants, nose rings and rap songs in the background. Well, no such luck. This group of 21 takes its charge from the City Council dead seriously, and that charge is to create a new downtown plan by November of this year. They have been working for 18 months and now, having less than five months to complete their work, they are in crunch time.  

This group is much different from the group that created the 1990 plan. Then, there were some downtown merchants and property owners included: real stakeholders. Today, not one of these is represented on DAPAC. Most members of today’s group live in the lowlands. They include city commissioners, two architects, three lawyers, several environmental consultants and two former councilwomen. This membership is indicative of who uses the downtown, who cares for its future and what having a downtown is all about in a university town.  

Group dynamics are also different. There is a sincere attempt to find unanimity and a common voice. There is less posturing on political positions and a genuine affection and appreciation across the room for those representing diverse views. The few spats that I’ve witnessed felt more like those between family members. They quickly come, extinguish themselves with an outburst by each person, and then we move on. The support staff has prepared and presented a phenomenal amount of good information laying groundwork for the many issues. As they are intent in having us complete our work by November, they run some meetings like circus animal trainers cracking their whips; think, speak, vote!  

There are several good reasons for a new plan only 17 years after the 1990 plan. The first big reason for all this effort is the University of California’s sizable land holdings in the downtown. The university will soon formally expand beyond its historic west boundary of Oxford Street with its acquisition of the Department of Public Health building (DPH). Another reason is that there are already projects being planned which exceed the height limitations of the 1990 plan. The Gaia Building was actually completed to about eight stories in real building height, despite the limits in the 1990. Now in the planning stages, the Arpeggio complex will be nine stories and the university hotel complex 19 stories. Why have a plan that doesn’t match what developers are proposing?  

So here are the giant, blow-out, divisive issues with which these 21 people have been grappling and must resolve within five months: 

How do we continue 1990 Downtown Plan’s strong emphasis on historical preservation?  

The 1990 plan established that the foundation of downtown planning was to be historic preservation. This was based on its citizens’ strong appreciation of the downtown’s collection of buildings. One proposal under consideration is to create an historic district of the Shattuck Avenue frontage properties from Berkeley Way to Durant Avenue. This “Main Street” has retained its basic character as established during the 20th century’s early decades. Preservation of these blocks will develop the Downtown’s cultural tourism by celebrating its historical character, and conserving older buildings is very “green.” 

How much new growth do we desire to accommodate without threatening our history or overwhelming it? 

The 1990 plan moved away from having a 100-foot height limit throughout the downtown from University to Durant, and from King to Oxford streets. That plan curtailed heights and defined a core area surrounded by buffer areas. However, beyond this core, tall buildings now stand next to short buildings, creating an archipelago of urban shapes. It is this variation that is unique to Berkeley and defines its urban character.  

For growth, there are three height options being considered: 1) Leave the existing height regulations in place: a seven-story core and five-story buffers. 2) Allow mid-rise buildings of eight or more stories in an expanded core area. 3) Allow buildings of a height and shape similar to the 13-story Wells Fargo Building in a broader area and only on properties large enough. 

How much housing do we allow and what types do we want? 

The issue of providing housing stems from an assessment prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Their report leads staff to project that the downtown should develop about 1,230 units in the next seven years and another 1,000 by the year 2035. For this amount, we would need sites for 16 projects of the size of the Stadium Place development at Durant and Fulton, which has 74 units on approximately 20,000 square feet of land. While most express the desire for family housing and want the downtown to be a residential neighborhood. the market has dictated student housing. Most units created in the last few years have been two-bedroom, student housing of 650 to 770 square feet. Family units are best at three bedrooms and about 1,000 square feet. 

How can improvements to the public transportation help to reduce car use? Specifically, will the benefits of the bus rapid transit (BRT) do the job and will its benefits outweigh its detriments to the downtown’s pedestrian environment? 

The bus rapid transit (BRT) has the potential of being a contentious issue. Its proponents champion it as the silver bullet to reduce car use and hence emissions. Those who desire a greening of the downtown look with horror at the enormous amount of trees and greenery that will be removed to implement the plan as idealized by AC Transit. There is a DAPAC sub-committee studying how to merge the BRT with the city’s environmental and aesthetic goals.  

What should Center Street become: a public square, a slow street or an opened, re-channeled Strawberry Creek Park?  

There is strong consensus that a public space, devoid of cars, should happen in the heart of the downtown on Center between Shattuck and Oxford. This space could be used for musical events that are now crammed onto the narrow and uncomfortable BART Plaza. A “Center Square” could also be used for political gatherings, educational events, fairs, carnivals, etc. There is a consensus for half the street becoming a public square and half becoming a green space.  

How do we define the university’s expansion west of Oxford Street, with a sub-text: where do we park UC’s 900 to 1,300 stalls and place 800,000 square feet of building area in the downtown?  

In the near future, UC will acquire the Department of Public Health (DPH) site, a block of land bounded by Hearst, Shattuck, Berkeley Way and Oxford which contains an eight story building of 120,000 square feet. It will also relocate and recreate the University Art Museum and the Pacific Film Archive at the top of Center Street. This westward expansion could be compared to when the university in the 1920s and 1930s expanded southwards across Strawberry Creek. It ultimately created great benefits to both the city and campus. Specifically, Zellerbach Hall and Theatre, Haas Pavilion, Edwards Sports Field, Berkeley Art Museum, Pacific Film Archive, Kroeber Hall and Sproul Plaza are facilities that have contributed greatly to campus as well as community life. In a similar way, DAPAC looks to the university to do likewise on its land development west of Oxford. The DAPAC has requested that one overall guiding development policy for the university to follow for its properties is that these developments contain public-serving functions at the street level. These could include the Eye Clinic, the Haas Business Center, other museums, visitors’ center, a commute store, administrative offices, faculty and student housing or a multi-cultural center. 

DAPAC desires the university to bring the natural features of the campus into the downtown along with its buildings. One greening idea is to continue the city’s desire for green pathways by extending the Ohlone Parkway along or through the center of the DPH site between Shattuck and Oxford, and thereby create a block-long natural feature integrated with building development. In the other direction, it is desired that Walnut Street be continued across the DPH site as a mid-block pedestrian walkway and continued from University Avenue to the proposed Center Street Square along the west side of UC development sites.  

So there you have it, a limited and individual view of some of the issues to be discussed and questioned at Saturday’s workshop on downtown planning. Bring your ideas and energies for a lively presentation by DAPAC members on the future of life at the core of our city. 

DOWNTOWN: PROGRESS AND OPTIONS 

10 a.m. to noon Saturday, June 16 at the Berkeley High School Library. 987-7487. 

Jim Novosel is an architect and a member of the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC).