Extra

That’s what can happen on Thursday, January 31, when the City Council will hear an appeal of the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) decision to approve Shattuck Terrace Green, an 18-story building with 274 residential units and a “lush” private roof garden, over the existing Walgreen’s on the old Penney’s/Ross/Walgreen’s site, 2190 Shattuck Avenue. The proposed building at this specific location pits preservation of a national heritage landmark feature against the need for housing.

It doesn’t need to be that way. We CAN HAVE BOTH -- housing AND preserving Berkeley’s heritage landmark, and that’s what we, the four appellants to the ZAB decision, want to happen.

The developers are Texas-based Mill Creek Residential, a national company that has built high rise “apartment homes” throughout the country. Berkeleyans are just getting to know them since they recently purchased the long dormant Acheson Commons permit and have started construction of 205 units at University and Shattuck. You may also remember Jason Overman who served as an elected Berkeley Rent Board Commissioner from 2004-2008. In 2006, he ran for the District 8 Council seat against Councilmember Gordon Wozniak and lost. His treasurer for that election was fellow Rent Board running mate and Commissioner, now Mayor, Jesse Arreguin. Since then, Mr. Overman has become a partner in Lighthouse Public Affairs which describes him on their website as their “political Swiss Army knife.” He is now a highly visible part of the developer team advocating for this project.

The landmark that’s involved is Campanile Way on the UC Berkeley campus with its view westward to the Golden Gate. Campanile Way was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. After a long and involved series of conflicting reports by City Staff over the meaning and extent of this designation, the Landmarks Preservation Commission in April 2018 voted to clarify the issue by giving additional local landmark status to Campanile Way, and specifically identifying the View as a “significant contributing factor.” However, the Council turned that recommendation down on the basis that placement of Campanile Way on the National Register was all the protection needed and that local designation was redundant.

When the project came to the ZAB, members were informed by history and planning experts that Campanile Way is one of the nation’s best examples of American Beaux-Arts planning and further that because of intense campus development during and since the 60’s, it is the last remaining place on campus the public can see the Golden Gate. Additionally, that blocking the View from Campanile Way would likely result in its removal from the National Registry.

Today, thousands of students, alums, school children, residents and tourists pause or gather throughout the year at the steps of Sather Tower to enjoy this unique, emotional and compelling visual experience. The View has emerged as the symbol of the culture of a world-recognized premier public university. It is also noteworthy that not only UC, but the State of California and the City of Berkeley, all use symbols that include the westward Golden Gate view. One expert likened the importance of blocking this view to a real-life proposal which would have blocked the view of the Statue of Liberty.

There’s pretty much agreement across the board that the building, as proposed, blocks this View -- photo simulations provided by the EIR, written assessments that 75% of the view would be blocked from the Campanile steps, city staff reports, and testimony by the developer’s attorney and ZAB members who acknowledge this fact, but say that it doesn’t matter.

Lost in this discussion is mention of the fact that the View from Campanile Way is the ONLY place on the Berkeley campus, or in the Downtown, where the public can access this View, at no expense, 24/7. It’s a much-loved destination for the public that in addition to preserving a more than 100-year landmark, also increases revenues and contributes vitality to its surroundings when people make a visit to a destination site. Stealing that View from the public and privatizing it solely for the residents of 2190 Shattuck Avenue was not considered a detriment by ZAB.

The developer’s attorney holds that it doesn’t matter anyway since the City doesn’t have a view ordinance, we can’t take this View into consideration. This completely dismisses the fact that the City of Berkeley has been regulating the height of buildings on private property for decades because of view considerations. Last year the City Council spent several meetings minutely reviewing two cases of view impacts from private homes in the Berkeley Hills. Whether the City has always gotten it right in each case is another issue, but the record is clear – the City always has, and still does regulate property based on view considerations.

Let’s be clear – appellants are not arguing for no housing, especially this close to transit. We support new housing here of all types. Using the developer’s chart, if the building height was reduced by six levels, the building would have 239 units, a reduction of a little less than 15%. If the building’s height was reduced to 9 levels, the building would still provide 172 units, still a substantial number of new housing units. Both reduced size projects would make this one of the largest apartment buildings of any type ever built in Berkeley.

The land slopes westward from the steps of Sather Tower, so a building somewhere within these height levels, even with a roof garden, could be constructed at the location in question that would not block the View.

We also note that the proposed building is 100% market rate, and that since the City is shamefully short of its Regional Housing Goals for all income categories except high incomes, we would hope this building would include within the building at least some low to moderate income rentals instead of paying in-lieu fees that result in years of delay for the actual production of such units.

We cannot, nor should we even try to design the building at an appeal hearing, nor should the Council do that. We cannot accurately indicate what exact height level would be appropriate, including a roof garden and all the necessary mechanicals without expert study.

Therefore, we are asking that the Council uphold this appeal and send the project back to the Zoning Adjustments Board, without additional fees, to consider a new proposal that protects the View, as well as issues such as why such a building would need any auto parking at all along with a wide driveway that has the potential for traffic and pedestrian safety problems.

To protect the public’s heritage View we ask you to write or call your

Councilmember, and speak in favor of our appeal at a Special Meeting of the Council, Thursday January 31, at the School District Board Room, 1231 Addison Street. The meeting starts at 6:00 pm and we are the only item on the agenda.