UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Transcription

1 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES MERCED RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ FACILITIES SERVICES BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA July 30, 2007 Mr. Dan Marks, Director Planning & Development Dept. City of Berkeley 2120 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA Dear Dan: As you know, the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee will complete its work in November of this year. As you have stated in a memo to the committee: the DAPAC will craft the heart of the Plan -- its strategic statements, goals and policies.. A complete draft of the Downtown Area Plan -- with recommended implementation measures and detailed background statements -- will be developed after November with guidance from the Planning Commission. In several critical policy areas, the DAPAC s direction is uncertain. For example, while the committee strongly advocates sustainability and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as city policy, many of its members also advocate a relatively low-density future for the downtown, despite its excellent transit access. Some have proposed a 3-story maximum base height for new buildings in downtown Berkeley, with taller buildings permitted if they meet bonus criteria. The committee is also considering a very ambitious program of new public open spaces. In an attachment to this letter, I transmit to you the University s current thinking on four critical areas for further consideration in the Plan: public realm, height and density, employment and housing, parking. We will work to convey these points to the committee in the coming weeks, and hope to see them adopted in the plan. Sincerely, Emily Marthinsen Assistant Vice Chancellor Capital Projects, Physical & Environmental Planning emarthinsen@cp.berkeley.edu phone cc: Ed Denton, Vice Chancellor Page 1

2 PUBLIC REALM The university is committed to the inclusion of public realm improvements in its projects in the city. As stated in the 2020 LRDP: Our objective to respect and enhance the City Environs requires more than just sensitive building design: it also requires each university project in the City Environs to contribute its fair share of improvements to the adjacent public realm, including undergrounding surface utilities and improving paving, planting and lighting within the project frontages. Our viewpoint: Although the university is committed to meet its obligation to the public realm under the 2020 LRDP, this commitment is limited to frontage and other improvements directly related to university projects, as described above. It does not extend to the creation of major new public open spaces in the downtown. University funds for landscape improvements are extremely limited, and we must reserve those funds to maintain and renew the Campus Park and other university-owned open spaces. We do, however, believe that Campus Park open spaces adjacent to the downtown, such as the West Crescent, can play a much more significant role in the quality of downtown life. The UC Berkeley Landscape Master Plan, the Landscape Heritage Plan and the campus Bicycle Plan identify a number of initiatives to improve Campus Park open spaces. Many of these would directly benefit the downtown. The quality of the public realm also depends on active uses at street level. On downtown sites, even when the entire building does not have a public character, its street level spaces should be active, visible, and interesting, and we are committed to this principle in new university projects. However, the DAP should define active street level uses to include not only conventional retail, but also university functions oriented to visitors and the public. Further considerations: In addition, as a public agency responsible for managing open space, we are extremely sensitive to the on-going costs required to maintain and improve landscape amenities. The DAPAC has discussed a program of over $8 million in potential public realm improvements without addressing the cost or responsibility of on-going maintenance, improving the condition of existing public open spaces or identifying the appropriate population required to keep public spaces well-used and safe. HEIGHT AND DENSITY Initial indications from the DAPAC suggest the new university program space proposed in the 2020 LRDP for downtown Berkeley (up to 800,000 net new gsf) can be accommodated on university-owned sites. However, the university interest in downtown goes beyond our own need for program space. Our interest extends to a downtown plan that encourages new creative, entrepreneurial ventures to locate in Berkeley; promotes new housing, services, and amenities within walking distance of campus; enhances the image and quality of campus life; and leads to a downtown that exemplifies sustainable urban life. Our viewpoint: Based on both urban design and economic factors, we propose the DAP include height and density limits on the downtown blocks adjacent to campus with at least these values: Max height: Max averaged height: Max above-grade FAR: 90 (to parapet, exclusive of mechanical penthouse) 75 Hearst to Berkeley and Allston to Durant 6.0 Berkeley to Allston 4.0 Hearst to Berkeley and Allston to Durant Particularly within the downtown core - from Berkeley Way to Allston Way - the DAP should consider heights or densities above these limits on certain parcels, to incentivize projects with extraordinary Page 2

3 public benefits, such as the proposed downtown hotel. Particularly outside the downtown core - north of Berkeley Way and south of Allston Way - the DAP should consider height limits in terms of both averaged and maximum building height, to encourage more varied building forms and a graceful transition to residential districts to the north and south. A 90 limit might best be visualized in comparison to some familiar reference Berkeley buildings: Power Bar Top of parapet: 163 Top of penthouse: 178 University Hall Top of parapet: 98 Top of penthouse: 115 Barker Hall Eave of roof: 95 (west) Top of roof: 109 City Club Eave of roof: 83 (west) Top of roof (main): 93 Although a greater maximum height, particularly in the downtown core, would be desirable, the university considers a 90 limit as the minimum acceptable maximum height on blocks adjacent to the campus. There is also interest on the DAPAC in a minimum height of 3 stories (± 50 ft) to preserve the street wall characteristic of historic downtowns, to frame and define the street as a public place, and to ensure a minimum intensity of use. The university supports this concept. The university opposes height and density criteria based on an unreasonably low base limit, which may be increased only through bonus provisions designed to promote specific policy goals. Current land use regulations use this device extensively and have led to controversy over both the goals themselves and how the bonus provisions are interpreted. Further considerations: Although the DAPAC has taken no formal position on urban form, it is evident there is a general aversion to monoliths such as Golden Bear or University Hall, and a general preference for more articulated volumes. Design guidelines can promote this to some extent, and the DAP is expected to include guidelines. However, we recommend the DAP also consider limits in terms of both maximum and average height, particularly on blocks that transition from the downtown core to adjacent residential districts. This not only allows more articulated and interesting building forms, it also allows building designs to be more responsive to solar conditions, by varying heights within the site to control shading of neighboring blocks. EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING The DAPAC generally supports housing and retail as land uses, but no direction is evident as yet regarding employment uses. Our viewpoint: To capture for the city the potential of entrepreneurial ventures generated by university research and professional programs, as well as to support the daytime vitality of the downtown, the DAP should encourage new development of class A office space in the downtown. Although the university supports incentives for new downtown housing, we hope to meet the housing needs of faculty and staff largely through private sector partnerships that minimize the use of university land and capital. University owned sites on blocks adjacent to the Campus Park will be prioritized for research, cultural, and service programs. These have a greater need than housing to be directly adjacent to campus. Further considerations: Our interest in new office space extends beyond our own program needs. We do recognize Berkeley is perceived as having a deficit of housing compared to jobs, which is thought to Page 3

4 drive up housing costs and increase the number of workers commuting into Berkeley. Yet, we also note 50% of employed city residents commute to jobs outside Berkeley. The city is well served by transit and is the planned northern terminus of a new bus rapid transit public investment. An increase in space suitable for professional offices could reduce the net export from Berkeley of professional residents, enhance the daytime vitality of the downtown, and enable new ventures generated by university research and professional programs to locate and thrive in Berkeley, benefiting both the city and campus. PARKING The DAPAC has identified several university-owned sites in the downtown as suitable for university parking, and has also encouraged underground parking to maximize the use of above ground space for other activities. Our viewpoint: The DAP should not preclude parking as a use on any university owned site, and should not preclude above-grade parking as a primary use on the University Hall Annex site. The university would consider shared use of all new downtown university parking, to the extent feasible. The 2020 LRDP encourages more university parking. As part of the Settlement Agreement, the university agreed to build no more than 1,270 net new parking spaces. Assuming roughly 300 net new spaces could be created by the proposed Maxwell Field parking structure, up to 1,000 net new spaces could be built on and around the campus, including downtown. Although a significant portion of the university parking need can be accommodated on these sites in one or - where feasible - two levels below grade, the university also intends to explore an above-grade structure on the University Hall Annex site. Because of its midblock location, a structure on this site would have less visual impact than structures on other sites with more street exposure, particularly with the inclusion of retail storefronts along the University Ave frontage. Further considerations: Moreover, the concentration of a greater number of spaces at this central location rather than dispersing them to more peripheral sites such as the DHS or Tang sites serves the interest of the city as well as the university. It supports the parking needs of the proposed hotel and museum on the adjacent block, and makes shared parking operations viable for the arts district and the retail core. Page 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11