How the City reached today’s controversy regarding Downtown Development is a long story that stretches back to over ten years. We are not going to go into all the nitty-gritty details, but will hit just the highlights of a story that can only be described as the poster child for How not to Plan.
You might ask why bother looking at this history? Our answer — it’s important because it reveals a pattern over the years of actions that have left us in June 2015 in the midst of a divisive mess when we should be working toward achieving the goal of encouraging a vibrant truly green Downtown that provides inclusive housing opportunities and revenue to help pay for the services we want.
It started on February 23, 2005 when the City filed a lawsuit against the University of California at Berkeley’s (UCB) 2020 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP). The purpose of the LRDP was to guide UCB’s development on and off campus to create around 1,200 new dorm beds, 1,800 to 2,300 new parking spaces and about 2.2M sq ft of new administrative and academic uses. (Note: This did not include the new Memorial Stadium/ High Performance Student Athletic Center, expansion around the area of Boalt Hall and Haas School of Business, and the research facilities which ultimately would be located in the Richmond Field Station Second Campus Plan.) The City’s lawsuit charged that the LRDP violated State law and would “sanction a University building boom.”
The Mayor and UC Chancellor entered into conversations about the lawsuit and repeated assurances were given by Mayor Bates that the public would be notified before any agreements were reached.
However, on May 25, 2005, Chancellor Birgeneau and Mayor Bates signed a deal behind closed doors that included a confidentiality clause that its terms would not be disclosed. It was subsequently approved by the Council in closed session and afterwards, its terms were announced to the public. The broad agreement terms were that:
- the City would drop its lawsuit.
- the Campus would pay the City about $1.2M annually for services provided by the City to the Campus (such as fire, sewer and storm drain costs for which the campus had been paying around $500,000/year) and the City would agree not to pursue new or additional sewer fees or litigation and exempt UCB from the imposition of higher sewer fees which the City had adopted on April 26, 2005. (Note: an earlier report commission by the City concluded that UCB cost the City roughly $10.9 M annually in unpaid services and lost property taxes and fees. UCB disputed the conclusions in that report.)
- UCB stated it supports in concept a financing plan for infrastructure improvements, transit and development in the Downtown Area, provided the Plan applies to all public and private property owners and developers in the Downtown Area, and that any UC financial contribution by UCB does not increase their $1.2M annual contribution.
- the City agreed not to impose a tax on University off-site parking.
- the City and UCB would cooperatively develop a new Downtown Plan with the University paying the City $250,000, approximately one-half of the cost of a planner to undertake this work (Matt Taecker was subsequently hired by the City), and the UCB reserved the right to pull out of the Plan if the new Downtown Area Plan didn’t meet the Regents’ needs (more simply known as a veto).
- UC property will always be the first option for UC development, but not the only option for UCB, given their research needs.
Approval of the agreement without public input unleashed a firestorm of opposition. Residents felt that if the City had let the lawsuit play out, the courts would have ruled favorably toward the City establishing a precedent on the issue of payment by the University for services provided by the City. Residents sued saying that the City really didn’t really need a new Downtown Plan and that even if one was needed, the City had given away too much of its development authority. Since residents have limited financial resources, that lawsuit did not go forward.
Two City groups were involved in producing this new Downtown Area Plan: The Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee and the City’s Planning Commission which by law must review such planning efforts before they are sent to the City Council.
The first meeting of the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee was held on November 21, 2005. The Committee was composed of a total of 21 members — 2 each appointed by the Mayor and City Council Members — and 3 ex officio members representing the University. The DAPAC met for about 2 years during which time the main issues were:
- UC: Assistant Vice Chancellor Marthinsen indicated that UCB wanted a maximum 90 ft height limit on the blocks adjacent to the campus, but that the City should consider greater heights and densities in the Downtown Core Area to encourage “extraordinary public benefits.”
- Center Street Plaza: Creation of a pedestrian mall and day lighting of Strawberry Creek along Center Street based on a design by Walter Hood.
- The Association of Bay Area Governments designation of 2,700 new housing units by 2014. City planners advised that most of these units should be allocated to the Downtown, since opposition in other areas would be “insurmountable.” DAPAC members compromised by allowing a limited number of taller buildings in exchange for affordable housing.
- Height and density. DAPAC recommended maximum height in the core Downtown Area of 87 ft (around 7 stories) including any Density Bonus, and 4 buildings up to 120 ft (2 of which must be hotel projects).
- Environmental Concerns: A DAPAC member and Sierra Club activist advised the Planning Commission that the “environmental organization backs the DAPAC Plan as the greener of the two documents.”
The last meeting of the DAPAC occurred on November 29, 2007 with a vote of 17-4 to approve their final plan.
On April 14, 2009 the Planning Commission on a vote of 7 to 2 approved a different set of recommendations that increased height and density in an expanded area of Downtown. Newspaper articles were quick to point out that 6 of the Commission’s 9 members drew their paychecks from the building sector (3 private sector planners, 2 architects and 1 attorney who represents developers) and that the Commission’s plan came from “the confluence of two powerful forces: the expansion plans of the University of California and the mandates of regional government in the form of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).” Both plans were presented to the Council.
As an aside, it is interesting to note the comment by Planning Commissioner and non-profit housing developer, Teresa Clarke, who said that the City should now make similar moves to pave the way for major housing projects, specifically tall buildings, near the North and South Berkeley BART Stations. (BNC takes note that the Adeline Corridor planning process is now taking place.)
June 11, 2009: Mayor Bates and Council Member Maio presented a Plan based on the Commission’s recommendations, modified in some aspects by the DAPAC plan. Among the policies in their proposed Plan were the DAPAC’s
- Center Street proposal as a “car-free, pedestrian-friendly plaza, ” and “strengthening” Planning Commission recommendations for
- 3 downtown buildings at least 180 feet high, 2 of which could go as high as 225 feet if they provided significant public benefits.
On July 14, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution #64,581-NS to approve a new Downtown Area Plan (DAP) and amendments to the General Plan based on the above.
Referendum petitions were filed on August 20, 2009. On October 13, 2009, the City Council acknowledged that the referendum petition against the DAP contained the required number of valid signatures. The referendum required 5,558 signatures and a total of 9,177 were submitted. This referendum was described as “especially hard-fought” in that 6 members of the Council campaigned against the signature gathering and persons opposed to the referendum would follow and stand next to people gathering signatures and try to persuade any people they talked to, to not to sign the petition.
With the signatures certified, implementation of the new DAP was stopped, and the Council had to choose between 2 options:
- Rescind Resolution 64,581-NS establishing the new DAP, or
- Submit the DAP to the voters
It wasn’t until the Council Meeting of February 23, 2010 that the Council rescinded Resolution 64,581-NS by approving Resolution 64,782-NS. and the Council began a discussion to place a new DAP on the November 2010 ballot.
At the their meeting of July 13, 2010, the Council approved an item submitted by Mayor Bates and Council Members Capitelli, Maio and Moore to place on the 2010 November ballot a measure to adopt a “Green Vision for the downtown, designating the Downtown Plan Area, adopting certain policies for the downtown, and stating the voters’ intention that the Council adopt a Downtown Area Plan that implements that green vision and voter-adopted policies.”
At the same time, Council adopted Resolution No. 65,005-NS certifying a revised Downtown Area Plan EIR and Resolution No. 65,006-NS amending the General Plan to bring it into compliance consistent with the proposed passage of the ballot measure, contingent on approval of the voters.
They also revised the wording of the ballot question to read as follows:
“Shall the City of Berkeley adopt policies to revitalize the downtown and help make Berkeley one of the greenest cities in the United States by meeting our climate action goals; concentrating housing, jobs and cultural destinations near transit, shops and amenities; preserving historic resources; enhancing open space; promoting green buildings; and calling for 2 residential buildings and 1 hotel no taller than our existing 180 foot buildings and 2 smaller office buildings up to 120 feet?”
The text of the 2010 Measure R as it appeared on the ballot can be read at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=57014
And so, Measure R was born and approved on November 2, 2010 by 26,120 voters (64.07% of those who voted on this issue). Among the new policies are 7 new voter-approved buildings:
- In the Core Area (1 block around the Downtown BART Station): a Maximum of 2 residential buildings (with commercial ground floor) that are no taller than 180 feet and a maximum of 1 hotel (with conference and related commercial) that is no taller than 180 feet.
- In the Core Area and/or Outer Core Only:
- Maximum of 2 office or residential buildings (with commercial ground floor) up to 120 feet (non-UC) and a maximum of 2 UC buildings up to 120 feet.
However, as BNC we compiled this history, we can’t help but wonder — Were The Voters Mislead? Read Part III for the answer…
And then there was Measure R in 2014 which reached the November ballot by way of an Initiative Petition. It was meant to
- designate and preserve a Civic Core Area that included the main Post Office, old City Hall, and the buildings around Civic Center Park.
- Retain the building heights from the 2010 Measure R.
- Require more from the developers, such as public restrooms, in the tallest buildings.
While a substantial number of signatures were collected over a particularly difficult time of the year — the Holidays — to put it on the ballot, 2014 Measure R went down to a big defeat. This probably was due to factors such as the Council enacting pre-emptive legislation to protect the Civic Core Buildings, heavy amounts of developer-based-funding claiming passage would result in increasing rents since no housing units would be built in the Downtown, a very low voter turn-out, the Measure was too long and complex, and the retention of the 180 foot heights from the 2010 Measure.