A projected sketch of the Acheson Commons project at University Avenue and Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley. Courtesy of Equity Residential.

In 2010, after weighing promised community benefits for affordable housing, transportation, and open space, the Sierra Club took a bold stance to support the Berkeley Downtown Area Plan (DAP). The plan applies to Berkeley’s Downtown Core, roughly a box along the Shattuck Avenue corridor and bounded by Delaware Street to the north, Oxford Street to the east, Dwight Way to the south and Martin Luther King Jr. Way to the west.

The Sierra Club’s support has been widely credited as a key reason for the approval of Measure R (the Downtown Plan) in 2010 with 64% of the vote. Our support for the plan came from a desire to revitalize downtown and help reduce car commuting and the development pressure for suburban sprawl. This commitment to urban infill employing green standards and programs is a key priority of the Sierra Club at all levels.

In March 2012 the City Council, voted 8 – 1 to approve the DAP. This vote closed a seven-year saga of competing plans worked on by the Berkeley DAP Advisory Committee and Planning Commission between 2005 and 2009, a successful 2009 referendum against a proposal backed by a majority of the City Council, and the contentious campaign around Measure R. This vote, however, opened an entirely new saga, centering on debates around the various community benefits.

Since then, though, the city’s implementation of community and environmental benefits, which were among our key reasons for supporting the Downtown Plan, has fallen short of expectations.

Open space and transportation–points of agreement

The Club and City Council have found common ground on the Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan (SOSIP) and associated impact fees. SOSIP is meant to guide future actions to make Berkeley’s Downtown “more attractive for pedestrians, enhance bicycle access, improve watershed health, support community life, and promote economic vitality,” according to a city-staff report. In January 2013 the Council unanimously approved SOSIP and (after approving a nexus study for its associated impact fee) set it at the maximum justifiable level of $2.23 per square foot of new residential use, $1.68 per square foot of new commercial use, and $1.12 per square foot of new institutional use. The University of California, which will own a sizeable portion of the projected development under the DAP and for whom two of the four 120-foot buildings permissible in the DAP are reserved, is exempt from the local fee, though city staff and councilmembers have expressed hope that it would pay it voluntarily.

The SOSIP impact fee is projected to raise only about $5.4 million of the total projected $17 million funding required for Phase I of the improvements outlined in the SOSIP (a proposal to “daylight” Strawberry Creek in the Downtown, which the Sierra Club supports, is included in Phase II), but staff hopes that the SOSIP will help the city win grants from regional agencies, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments, which has identified Berkeley’s Downtown as a Priority Development Area.

The city is submitting a funding proposal to the Alameda County Transportation Commission for the FY 2012/2013 Alameda County Coordinated Funding Program for up to $12.65 million for the BART Plaza and Transit Area Improvement Project, Downtown Shattuck Reconfiguration and Pedestrian Safety Improvements, and Hearst Avenue Complete Streets Project, all within the Downtown Core.

The City Council is slated to take up a transportation services fee, a concept the Sierra Club has historically supported, later in the calendar year.

Affordable housing–will there be any in the Downtown?

Under the DAP around 1,000 units of new rental housing are proposed to be built in the Downtown over the next few years, plus an additional 220 nearby. But will any of these be affordable?

According to RealFacts, monthly rents on one-bedroom apartments in Berkeley have risen from an average of $1,789 in the fourth quarter of 2010 to $2,111 in the fourth quarter of 2012–an 11.2% increase–while average rents for two-bedroom, two-bath apartments went up 17.7% to $2,917 during the same period. Apartments available for lease at Berkeley Central on Center Street between Milvia and Shattuck start at $2,500 for a one-bedroom, with a two-bedroom penthouse topping out at $6,300 per month. According to the building’s proprietor, the housing is targeted to students, young professionals, and empty nesters.

A core principle of greenhouse-gas reduction is to site people of all incomes close to where they work. The need for this is further reflected by a recent city of Berkeley study, which found that only 17.1% of Berkeley jobs are held by city residents. This figure used to be nearly 44% in the 1990s.

Under current California law, municipalities can’t require developers to build affordable housing. Instead, cities have two tools to increase the stock of below-market rate (BMR) housing: the density bonus and an in-lieu fee. Cities can offer a density bonus–allowing developers to exceed height, setback, and massing limits set forth by the zoning, and possibly granting additional concessions–in return for the building of BMR units, the number and affordability of which are governed by a state formula. If the city carries out a “nexus study” (the nexus relates affordable housing provisions to mitigations for the economic impacts of building market-rate housing), the city may establish an affordable-housing fund. Developers may pay into this instead of building the housing themselves, which, some experts believe, leads over time to a more efficient affordable-housing match, since nonprofits do the building.

Berkeley’s nexus study in 2011 set $34,000 per unit as the maximum feasible fee. Though lobbied by the Sierra Club as well as Berkeley’s Housing Advisory Commission and Rent Board to adopt the maximum feasible fee, the City Council voted in October 2012 to set the in-lieu fee at $28,000 per unit, to go into the Housing Trust Fund. Several developers told the city that the fee was too high, and that they would not take that option. In February, over the opposition of the Club and the same commissions, the Council voted to lower the amount to $20,000 per unit. Just a week later, a developer notified the Berkeley Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) that it would reduce the height of a development in a sensitive buffer area from eight stories to six and pay the in-lieu fee (a total estimated to be about $1.4 million) rather than opting for the density bonus. It remains to be seen whether other developers will follow suit.

Labor protections

When Measure R was approved by Berkeley voters, the DAP included a “Green Pathway”, a streamlined permitting process for projects meeting certain green-building requirements and including “extraordinary public benefits”. For buildings up to 75 feet in height, this category would do away with the requirement for a public hearing and some upper-story setbacks, and there would be a time limit on review by the Landmarks Preservation Commission and Design Review Committee. Taller projects would be afforded a time-limited public hearing through the ZAB. The Green Pathway would also have required developers to agree to paying prevailing wages and to hire locally for construction, along with other labor benefits.

Shortly after the measure’s passage, a group of people who opposed Measure R and the Downtown Plan sued the city on the grounds that the Green Pathway was not studied in the DAP Environmental Impact Report. This tool is now snagged in the courts, with little hope for a ruling before the spate of planned downtown construction is largely over.

In late 2012, the ZAB approved the first large downtown project under the new Downtown Plan regime, a sprawling development known as Acheson Commons, which incorporates four historic structures and is roughly bordered by University Avenue, Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley Way, and Walnut Street.

A group of building-trades workers appealed the project to the City Council on various technical grounds. Their real concern appears to be that the non-Green Pathway DAP application lacks safeguards for equitable wages, benefits, and other labor protections and that Equity Residential, the developer of this project and the largest residential developer in the country, is not willing to voluntarily adopt such standards for this project. In recognition of the environmental benefits associated with local-hire policies (such as their effect on greenhouse-gas reduction) and in view of historic alliances between the Sierra Club and labor organizations (in particular, the appellants  all previously supported Measure R), the Sierra Club supports this appeal. The City Council will hear this appeal on March 26.

The Sierra Club Northern Alameda Group will continue to work to implement the full community benefits promised in the Downtown Area Plan.

The Warriors’ proposed arena and mixed-use development, on the San Francisco waterfront at Piers 30 – 32, raises many concerns.

Under California’s Public Trust Doctrine, waterfront development is restricted to water-related and acceptable maritime uses. The Warriors’ proposal, however, though not yet clearly defined for the public, consists of a bulky building with a parking structure and retail on the piers, along with high-rise construction on the adjacent Seawall Lot 330, which would be higher than currently permitted building heights.

This proposal purports to be a sports arena, yet Warriors games are only 25% of the projected events. If the goal is a professional basketball venue, why are more-appropriate, transit-rich sites not being discussed.

The proposed parking would cause severe traffic impacts on the Embarcadero roadway. Cars entering and leaving the parking garage would interfere with pedestrians, runners, and cyclists. When events at the arena coincide with Giants games, the traffic could effectively shut down the whole southeastern quadrant of the city. Which is the higher authority, National Basketball Association parking “requirements” or the city’s 40-year-old Transit First policy?

Substantial upgrades to the transit infrastructure are being examined, but at what capital and operating costs to existing routes?

Sea-level rise must be considered in any waterfront development. Simple common sense would move an arena away from the water, yet here it is planned at the edge of the Bay.

We are concerned that the city and the Port may incur substantial financial liabilities in this rush for approval. (Think America’s Cup.) We look forward to the budget analyst’s report for clarity.

The potential economic opportunities, including local jobs, could be realized at an alternative location.

The Warriors say that they will release design refinements by April 30, and the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report is months away.

A Citizens’ Advisory Committee, appointed by the Port, and subcommittees are meeting regularly without a lot of public attention.

San Francisco is also moving on the legislative front. Assemblymember Phil Ting will be introducing the Piers 30 – 32 Revitalization Act. We will study this bill with great interest.

Becky Evans, chair, Sierra Club San Francisco Group

On March 1 the Sierra Club and the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) filed suit challenging the county of Sacramento’s approval of Cordova Hills, a massive residential and commercial development that is inconsistent with the region’s efforts to control sprawl. The project would also undermine the region’s efforts to reduce emissions of federally regulated air pollutants and greenhouse gases, as well as efforts to protect what remains of the state’s richest vernal pools.

ECOS, a coalition of environmental organizations in the Sacramento area, and the Sierra Club have consistently pushed for responsible urban development that maximizes benefits to the region and protects habitat values.

Cordova Hills as approved consists of 2,667 acres, of which 2,120 acres will be urbanized, 302 acres will be avoided or used for agriculture or recreation, and 247 acres will be reserved for a university/college campus center. 1.3 million square feet of retail are planned. 8,000 homes are also planned with a population of 21,379.

Sean Wirth, conservation chair for the Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club, stated: “This project is classic leapfrog sprawl development that utilized an enticement of a major regional amenity, namely the university, to give the Sacramento County Board of supervisors cover to approve the destruction of some of the finest remaining vernal pools in our region. And there isn’t even a university on the hook to locate there.

“ECOS presented convincing evidence that securing a university at Cordova Hills is at best very unlikely,” Wirth continued. “The Environmental Impact Report’s failure to analyze the project’s greater impacts without a university is a key factor in our legal challenge.”

The approval of this project is a large step backward in regional planning. It ignores the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Blueprint and the Regional Transportation Plan’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), as well as the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality.

“It adds to urban sprawl and undercuts efforts to promote infill development near existing jobs,” stated ECOS president Rick Guerrero. “If this approval stands, it will signify a failure in statewide efforts to engender and incentivize smart-growth planning principals as a way to reduce greenhouse gases. Given the serious ramifications of this project, it is not surprising to see the broad opposition that is building even beyond the boundaries of the state.

“We need to bolster the efficacy of SB 375, which ties transportation dollars to smart-growth development, not allow it to be openly flouted with business as usual sprawl projects that have negative impacts that are regional in scope,” said Wirth.

“Allowing a new development the size of a city on the fringe of the county is going to result in very negative consequences for the entire region, including impacts to health, habitat, endangered and threatened species, traffic, value of existing homes, the ability to make infill development financially feasible, funding for communities at risk, as well as regional planning efforts like the SCS and the SACOG Blueprint.”

To see the petition for writ of mandate see: motherlode.sierraclub.org/documents/CordovaHillsPetition4WritMandate.pdf.

Background

The project site is within the Mather Core Recovery Area for vernal pools, an area designated as the highest priority for vernal-pool conservation. The mitigation for these vernal pools is anticipated to occur through the South Sacramento Conservation Plan (SSHCP) which has yet to be adopted, and it should be noted that a significant compromise was achieved in the SSHCP that balanced the loss of these and related pools with the regional benefits of the SSHCP. There remain uncertainties as to how effective the mitigation will be, whether within the SSHCP, or if the SSHCP is never finished and implemented.

The broader issue with the project relates to its satellite location and the elevated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and air pollution associated with living in and driving from that location. The remote location of the project creates difficulties for the region to meet its obligations under AB 32 and SB 375 as well as the SIP for ozone. The project proponents, realizing this problem, had earlier included a 6,000-student self-contained university (College of Sacramento, a religious university that was to be operated by the Legionaries of Christ) as part of the project that reduced calculated VMT based on a greater number of local trips associated with either attending or working at the university. The College of Sacramento has since folded and no new university candidate has been located. All of the analyses in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for air pollutants and greenhouse gases were calculated based on the assumption that the project would include a self-contained university. The comments on the draft EIR submitted by the Sierra Club and others identified the omission of an analysis of a “no university” scenario as a significant problem with the report because there was no certainty of a university ever locating there. Since other development is not tied to the presence of the university (through phasing or other mechanisms), the analysis including the university does not reflect the likely reality of how the project would develop.

In 2011 SACOG completed it first SCS for inclusion in its Municipal Transportation Plan update. The SCS is the implementation of SB 375 which ties transportation dollars to smart growth development. SB 375 is the urban-development piece of the pie needed to meet the greenhouse-gas (GHG) reductions required by AB 32. The SCS is a sophisticated analysis and strategy designed to meet those GHG reductions.

The SCS uses streamlining of requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act as a carrot to drive development into infill and other smart-growth development areas. Whereas the SCS does not have any regulatory teeth, it does represent a development scenario that will allow the SACOG region to meet its GHG reductions. Dramatic deviations from the SCS, though not inhibited by any specific regulatory requirement, impact the strategy such that the options for successfully meeting the regional GHG reductions become increasingly limited. SACOG has made clear that it sees the Cordova Hills project as premature and that it will result in elevated levels of GHG. The project site is located far outside the boundary of the SCS, which addresses growth demand up until 2035.

While there are no regulatory teeth yet for GHG, this is not the case for ozone. The project is inconsistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. While the project proponents did prepare a best case 35% air-quality mitigation plan, which was endorsed by the Air Quality Management District, to be consistent with the SIP, the project would need to mitigate its reactive-organic-gas and oxides-of-nitrogen emissions by 100%. The project’s inconsistency with the SIP and the SCS could jeopardize the approval of projects already in the SIP and SCS, which are more appropriately located from a VMT and emissions perspective, since the emissions from the project inevitably will need to be made up elsewhere. And that is the best-case scenario with the university in place. The situation deteriorates much further as relates the SIP with the absence of the university.

The SCS was designed to incentivize growth in appropriate locations. It acknowledges that allowing premature fringe developments such as Cordova Hills would drive development and resource focus away from smart growth infill areas such as inner cities. The presence of large tracts of undeveloped entitled lands will adversely affect the prognosis for success of developers contemplating inner-city and developed-urban-area infill projects.

Serious deficiencies in the EIR were presented in comment letters and public testimony to little or no effect. The lawsuit challenges, among other causes, the lack of analysis for a “no university” scenario in the EIR. The analysis of impacts in the EIR relied upon the presence of a large self-contained university. No such university is extant or likely and, therefore, the actual impacts were not identified or mitigated. Similarly, the 1.3 million square feet of retail space included and analyzed in the project appear unrealistic, given its geographic isolation and the significant obstacles to future growth there. At issue, as well, are the sensitive and rare vernal pools and other habitat that will be destroyed without adequate mitigation measures.

On Election Day this November San Francisco voters will decide a critical battle over high-rise development along San Francisco’s historic northern waterfront.

For the first time in more than 20 years, San Franciscans will vote on a referendum challenging a City Hall-approved ordinance. A coalition of environmental and neighborhood groups collected 31,000 signatures in less than 30 days last summer to ask voters whether they want to approve increased waterfront height limits to allow a high-rise luxury condo complex to be built at 8 Washington Street. The tower would be built on publicly owned waterfront land along the Embarcadero across from the Ferry Building and on an adjacent private lot that currently houses a well-used family recreation and sports center.

For decades the Sierra Club has worked for strict building height limits on San Francisco’s waterfront to keep it open for public use and enjoyment rather than blocked by a wall of high-rise towers, as has happened to public waterfronts in Miami, San Diego, and elsewhere.

The Club will be working throughout 2013 with a citywide coalition of neighborhood associations, waterfront businesses, and tenant groups called “No Wall on the Waterfront” to urge San Francisco voters to reject the 8 Washington waterfront height-limit increase on the Nov. 5 ballot.

To get involved or for more information about the campaign, visit www.NoWallOnTheWaterfront.com or contact the campaign at waterfrontreferendum@gmail.com or (415)894-7008.

Jon Golinger, campaign director, No Wall on the Waterfront

San Francisco is where it is and what it is because of the waterfront. The shoreline has also been the site of constant struggles to protect the character and legacy of the City’s maritime history. Now it faces at least four development proposals which together would constitute the greatest change to the waterfront in many decades. (There’s a major challenge to the city’s ocean edge, as well; see article, page 3.)

Leading the charge is a proposal for 145 luxury condominiums at 8 Washington, a project which involves a complex land swap among the Port, the city, and the private developers. The project would contain 400 parking spaces, three times the parking permitted by code–in a vast underground, practically underwater, garage. The project would exceed the existing 85-foot height limits by more than 50 feet. While these “spot zoning” changes have already been approved by the Supervisors, they are being challenged by a referendum on the November ballot (see article, page 7).

A similar 31-story luxury-condominium project is proposed for 75 Howard Street (at the Embarcadero). That project would include 186 luxury units plus ground-floor retail, with 175 parking spaces. Zoning changes would need to be approved to raise the height limits from 200 to 350 feet, an even greater increase than for 8 Washington. While the project does propose open-space enhancements to the Embarcadero frontage, the proposed height will certainly be controversial.

These two projects are relatively small compared to two mega-projects proposed for the South Beach/China Basin waterfront.

In the works since 2007, the Giants’ proposal for a mixed-use development project at Seawall Lot 337/Pier 48 (across Mission Creek from AT&T Park and currently used by the Giants as a parking lot), has recently been revised and is poised to gather approvals soon. The mammoth proposal calls for up to 1,000 units of new housing, almost two million square feet of retail and office space, a 5,000-seat event venue, and a massive 2,690-space parking garage. Once again, the 380-foot towers would need zoning changes. To satisfy the minimum requirements of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the project does call for eight acres of open space, including a new five-acre park, but there is little guarantee that the proposed park component will be built any time soon. There is a logic to promoting entertainment options on ballpark down days, but the proposed project suffers from excessive parking. A more dispersed approach using smart parking-management technologies and congestion pricing might manage existing capacity more efficiently while avoiding the impacts of a single massive garage generating hundreds of trips per hour. It is one of the shortcomings of current level-of-service methodology used in environmental reviews (see article, page 6) that parking spaces are not considered in themselves to generate traffic. But build it, and they will come.

The highest-profile proposal, which would radically transform the skyline near the Bay Bridge, is the Warriors’ plan for a signature arena and retail mall at Piers 30 – 32, with further development on the adjacent Seawall Lot 330. Following on the heels of the failed America’s Cup bid for the site, the Warriors have swept in from across the bay with an even more aggressive “mixed use” proposal. The development would include a lozenge-shaped 17,000 – 19,000-seat arena/events venue jutting obtusely out into the Bay and rising 13 stories (135 feet)–once again requiring zoning changes–along with 150,000 square feet of retail and office space, and a 630-vehicle parking garage, necessary, according to project sponsors, to meet National Basketball Association parking requirements for new arena developments. Because of the site constraints, this parking would be constructed on three levels above grade, further blocking vistas and access. View terraces would be built above the parking and retail, at 35 and 50 feet above grade, doubling as “open space”. On Seawall Lot 330, the proposal calls for a bulky plinth-like base with two towers on top, each up to 150 feet tall, with up to 300 additional parking spaces. All told, the project would add more than 930 new parking spaces. Plans for the site are scheduled for release on Feb. 24.

The appropriateness of the proposed land uses aside—it is hard to justify hotels, office space, or even sports arenas as authentic “maritime uses”—the traffic impacts on the Embarcadero, the adjacent neighborhoods, and local transit will certainly be significant. It is especially hard to conceive how the Embarcadero, already at capacity on Giants game days, will accommodate six to 10 thousand additional trips on days when both teams play. These concerns—congestion, impacts on Muni, loss of light and views—have led many observers to wonder whether the waterfront is the right place for yet another professional-sports and retail development project. In sum, the Warrior’s project is by no means a “slam dunk”.

The Sierra Club has a long history of protecting the waterfront from inappropriate development. We oppose “spot” zoning changes for height limits without a community-based planning process. We find it troubling that each of these projects is being considered piecemeal, without an overall plan. We are concerned about the lack of investment for transit improvements (outrageously, all of the development impact fees associated with the Warriors’ project are currently earmarked to reimburse the private developers for improvements to the piers, rather than for transit). We will continue to advocate for less parking and for authentic transit-first planning and development, as well as for policies to encourage maritime uses and usable open space along the shoreline.

WhatYouCanDo

As these projects come up for approvals, there will be several chances for you to speak up about them. To be alerted at the right times, make sure you are on the Bay Chapter’s e-mail alert lists. To sign up, go to sfbay.sierraclub.org/updates.

For more about the parking problems of these projects, see article, page H.

Steven Chapman, Executive Committee, Sierra Club San Francisco Group