Editorials

“My mind is made up—don’t confuse me with facts!”

That was my father’s refrain when, as a typical teenaged know-it-all, I confronted his long-held beliefs with my own ideas. That was way back in the fifties when he was still struggling to remain a Republican. The last Republican he voted for was Senator Tom Kuchel, but he maintained his Republican registration until he died in his nineties. Of course, this was mainly at my Democratic mother’s instigation, who was wont to send irate telegrams signed by his name and “lifelong Republican”. Over the years, both Senator Kuchel and my father were deserted by the Republican party that they wanted to believe in.

Sometimes when he repeated that mantra it was in all seriousness, and sometimes he was mocking my own seriousness. Either way, I’ve been frequently reminded of my late father’s maxim as I compulsively continue to track the Titanic 2211 Harold Way project through the Berkeley political process.

The descriptive adjective above is chosen deliberately—I’ve seldom seen anything that better illustrates the cliché about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. At the Zoning Adjustments Board last night, during the “study session” which preceded the regular meeting, various commissioners raised questions about the color of the tinted wall of glass, the tiles used on one face, the trees on the roof garden, and myriad other minor points, but tried desperately not to confront the totality of the problems which this monster promises to create for Berkeley. 

There was a beautiful full moon last night, and as I walked down the steps of the Maudelle Shirek Old City Hall after the ZAB meeting I saw it rising majestically above the also-beautiful art deco sculptured face of Berkeley High School. My enjoyment of the view was spoiled, however, when I imagined the huge mass of the proposed Residences at Berkeley Plaza (RatBP) looming over the school, emitting a flood of artificial light into the night sky and obliterating the moon. 

The evening provided yet another depressing demonstration of how Berkeley’s decision-making process conspires to prevent the putative decision-makers from addressing a proposed project as a whole, but confines their scrutiny to the minutiae.  

From the commission secretary’s announcement: “…the Study Session will begin at 6:00 and then closed at 7:00 to accommodate the regular ZAB meeting. It will be re-opened at the conclusion of the regular ZAB meeting if necessary, this is anticipated to be around 9:00 p.m. The ZAB discussion may be continued to this time, otherwise this time may be dedicated to public comment. Each public speaker will be allotted one (1) minute.” 

The public had dutifully showed up at 6 under the reasonable assumption that some public comment would be allowed at that time before the meeting started, as is the custom with other civic bodies like the Landmarks Preservation Commission and the City Council. Instead, however, the commission voted to postpone comment until after nine, and in fact it was at least 9:30 when the public finally got the opportunity for one minute soundbytes.  

And quelle surprise! By that time many who'd put in speaker cards had gone home.  

Why should this matter?  

Because public comment on this project is shaping up to be the most reliable way of conveying information to a commission hamstrung by a woefully inadequate Environmental Impact Report and their own process and staff. Watching well-informed and well-qualified public citizens attempting to convey important facts in the form of one minute soundbytes is reminiscent of what they used to say about Ginger Rogers: she did everything Fred Astaire did, and she did it backwards in high heels.  

Hired out-of-town consultants for applicants are given at least 20 minutes per appearance. Berkeleyans make do with one minute each, yet they convey more information. 

In the face of apparently insurmountable obstacles, Berkeley’s public citizens have managed to put some relevant facts which have been glossed over by staff and expensive consultants into the record of this project. Last night they tried one more time to also get the information into the heads of the commissioners, and against all odds some ZAB members seemed to be getting it. Others, needless to say, did not. 

Last night three relatively new facts which were not addressed adequately in the EIR were brought to light. The most worrisome one was the latest promise from developer’s advocate Mark Rhoades to re-build ten cinema screens for Landmark Shattuck Cinemas. This was referred to by one commissioner as a “significant community benefit”, though as several speakers observed it’s nothing more than a mitigation of the huge detriment which would be created by demolishing the existing cinemas.  

The scary part is that Rhoades’ latest version of the shape-shifting plan for the project locates four of the new theaters underground, under the principal building on the landmarked site, which is the original Shattuck Hotel, built in 1910. The shoddy EIR did not recognize that the hotel was built on an old creek bed with attendant danger of liquefaction in an earthquake, and that it still had its original ceramic tile foundation. The EIR did call for a structural engineering report on foundation questions, but it wouldn’t be done until AFTER the building permit had been issued and demolition and construction were underway. 

Speakers pointed out two alternative dangers: (1) The study would document the suspected hazards and—Oh So Sorry—the theaters would never be rebuilt after all or (2) the project would indeed burrow under the historic hotel, the theaters would be built, and in the Big One it would all collapse, killing both hotel guests upstairs and movie fans downstairs. The Library Gardens tragedy would loom small as compared to that scenario. 

Another problem which the application, the EIR and numerous staff reports seem to have missed altogether is the interaction between the California Enviromental Quality Act and Berkeley’s Landmark Preservation Ordinance. Former LPC Commissioner Lesley Emmington Jones cited eight specific questions about these complex technical legal issues in a letter signed by five former LPC commissioners with at least 40 years experience among them. I was one of them.  

Other signers included another person trained as an attorney, Anne Paxton Wagley, recently retired after 8 years on the commission, Jill Korte, who worked for the Environmental Protection Agency for many years, and Rose Marie Pietras, a principal planner for Contra Costa county for more than 20 years, with several stints on City of Berkeley boards and commissions to boot. She was unceremoniously dumped from the LPC by Mayor Tom Bates when she expressed doubts about this project.  

Lesley Emmington Jones was one of the original authors of the LPO and was a longtime staffer for Berkeley Architectural Heritage. She wasn’t able to stay for the second part of the session, however, so ZAB members missed their chance to ask her to explain her complicated analysis.  

The third glaring problem, perhaps the most egregious, is that this whole discussion has been based on the premise, originally set forth in the 2010 Measure R, that new buildings would be no taller that Berkeley’s two existing tall downtown buildings. The developer has been claiming that the RatBP building, now up to at least 194 feet, would fit this criterion. 

This turns out to be—a lie? Do our civility and moderation tsars allow us to use that very clear word anymore? Well, it’s at least an error of fact. 

Citizens Charlene and Bill Woodcock followed Ronald Regan’s axiom, “trust, but verify”, and hired a professional surveyor at their own expense. He concluded the two tall downtown buildings are at least 10 feet shorter than the proposed new building would be. 

Charlene’s letter and the surveyor’s letter can be found in the last issue of the Planet. It’s less than a page—but she wasn’t able to finish reading even this succinct communication in the allotted minute. I do hope the commissioners get around to reading it. 

And in a nutshell, that’s why this is a terrible way to make a decision about a project which could make or break Downtown Berkeley. Even the conscientious among the commissioners were prevented by time limitations from doing the due diligence which is desperately needed.  

The best informed and qualified among them, Sophie Hahn (Berkeley High, Stanford law school, BHS parent) who always does her homework, was interrupted not once but twice in her attempt to pose an admittedly lengthy list of pertinent questions for the record. In the 6pm-7pm segment, Acting Chair Denise Pinkston cut Hahn off after four minutes, saying she’d have plenty of time to finish after 9 o’clock. 

But the applicant’s representative didn’t bother to hang around for the second part of the “study session”. Hahn nonetheless tried to finish stating her concerns after 9, but she was yet again cut off by late-arriving Chair Prakash Pinto, who wanted to say something himself. 

Both chairs should take time to acquaint themselves with the substantial body of studies documenting the fact that women are interrupted more often than men before they truncate Commissioner Hahn’s valuable contributions. I know, I know, it’s just not fair that someone should take more than four minutes of valuable time just because she happens to have read the EIR.  

This is unlike, I strongly suspect, the majority of her colleagues, whose minds seem clear of those confusing facts. When LPC members were asked how many had read the EIR before they voted on this project, only two out of nine had done so, and I expect that if asked the ZAB commissioners might have a similar report, based on what they said last night. 

But fear not, there’s an app for that. Or at least a work-around. Public citizen Moni Law, who practiced for 20 years as an environmental attorney in other states before moving to Berkeley, displayed a draft version of what’s she’s working on: CLIFFS NOTES on 2211 Harold Way EIR* (*Everyone Ignores Reality), a one-page document complete with yellow and black parody cover. It’s a study aid “for those who have not read the 506 page EIR, yet vote on its contents as allegedly sufficient (i.e. the Landmark Preservation Commission… and Zoning Adjustments Board.)"  

The presentation is satirical, but its preliminary list of seven defects in the EIR is quite serious, with a promise of more to come in the next draft. It might even help the City Council, now trying to steer this project from behind by switching commission appointees in and out, if commission decisions are eventually appealed to Council, as they seem likely to be.  

We can only hope that ZAB does its job so that won’t be needed. 

Unless, of course, minds of commissioners or councilmembers are already made up, so citizens can’t confuse them with facts. That’s happened before, hasn’t it? 

It might eventually be necessary to ask a judge to explain it all to them.