Berkeley Downtown Plan Debate Continues

As a resident of Berkeley, I have been following the recent evolution of the new Downtown Area Plan.  What was initially an idea that remarkably enjoyed “unanimous support,” has slowly evolved over a four year period into a heated debate.  The debate reflects an ongoing struggle in Berkeley between those who seek to limit development and an increase in urban density and those who feel that a density increase is vital to restoring the ailing downtown area.

Some who oppose increased density argue that it is bad development mislabeled as smart growth, and a movement towards more people, more cars and traffic problems, and less green space.  Those that support a density increase see it as a means of creating a more walkable community, allowing people to live where they work, and thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions exacerbated by suburban sprawl.  These two groups are especially pitted against each other in Berkeley, and people on both sides can claim to be environmentalists.


While the original plan that was proposed by the 25-member citizen's Downtown Area Advisory Plan Committee was hardly unanimously approved, the plan that was then adapted by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council has been even more hotly contested.  This version has been successfully petitioned to be put up for public vote in 2010, a fight led by two City Council members who voted against the commission version.  So what are these additional layers of disagreement about?

Essentially, the debate centers around two general areas.  The first involves the interconnected concerns regarding the impacts of increased density and height allowances on the overall character of downtown and it’s historical landmarks.  The City Council approved version allows taller buildings with fewer restrictions.  The second issue involves the green building and affordable housing elements that the DAPAC worked to incorporate into their version, but the Planning Commission considerably weakened.   The DAPAC felt that both of these components were vital to the plan’s success.  The Planning Commission, at least those members who voted for the final plan, felt that the adjustments were necessary to make Berkeley’s development economically feasible.  Those fighting this version criticize it as siding with developers and not accurately reflecting the needs and values of Berkeley residents.

In light of the fact that even that chairman of the DAPAC, Will Travis, acknowledged that the committee did not examine economic aspects of the plan due to time constraints and a general distrust of economists, it seems reasonable that the new plan be explored further in a public forum.  There is no doubt that the impacts of the plan will be far-reaching, and that including supports for green building measures and affordable housing are essential.  But enacting a plan that actually executes the goals of improving the vitality of the area while maintaining the historical essence of the community, rather than preventing development with excessive costly requirements, is where the challenge lies.

The debate continues.