CENA Web Newsletter

May 2008

INDEX

Article 1 “Saving Strawberry Canyon”

Article 2 “E-mails from our Members: Safeway”

Article 3 “Claremont Court 100 Years Ago”

Article 4 “Real Estate-Is the Sky Really Falling?”

Article 5 “Bus Rapid Transit on Telegraph Avenue Update”

Article 6 “Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore Project Update”

 

                                      

Article 1:                               Building Up Strawberry Canyon

 

            Strawberry Canyon cradles the south fork of Strawberry Creek and is known  to  be  one  of  the finest natural areas of comparable size  in  the Bay Area, rich  with a diversity of  native  plant  and  animal  life and also  home to the  University’s  Botanical   Garden,  including  the  Mather  Redwood Grove.  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)  plans  to expand its research facilities  located  above  the University Campus  and  on  the  north slopes of  Strawberry Canyon.  LBNL plans to  add  to  the area  980,000  gross  squarefeet  (gsf)  of  new  buildings, to  demolish  320,000 gsf  of  existing  buildings, to create  585,000 gsf  of  new  parking  lots, and  to  build  at  least  two  new parking  garages.

            While long term LBNL expansion plans seem to be under our radar, the first two massive projects, the Computational Research and Theory Facility (CRT) and the Helios Energy Research Facility (Helios) are poised to be approved at the Regents meeting in May.  Most of us in the Claremont-Elmwood neighborhood have been following the issue of the Memorial Stadium expansion, but we did not dream that a major new research and development complex would also be planned above the Stadium in Strawberry Canyon. Not only would traffic congestion be further exacerbated on our neighborhood streets, property blight would increase and natural resources would be lost and the threat of damage from wildfires, landslides, and earthquakes on the Hayward Fault would become even more critical.

            There is cause for alarm because Strawberry Canyon, integral to Claremont Canyon and the central vista point from the Berkeley Hills out to and beyond the Golden Gate, is at risk.  Berkeley’s wonderful sense of place is defined in large measure by its location “opposite the Golden Gate” and its natural relationship to the sloping hillsides and canyons of the Coast Range. In Claremont-Elmwood we can appreciate the vision of early 20^th century developers such as Duncan McDuffie who designed our neighborhood to merge almost seamlessly with the dramatic terrain of the rising eastern hills. More recently, we can appreciate the achievement of the Claremont Canyon Conservancy, working to preserve the wild and beautiful canyon corridor that leads up into the vast expanse of the East Bay Regional Park along the Coast Range.         Our tradition is to value the natural beauty of our surroundings. When Frederick Law Olmsted, the father of America’s landscape architecture, came to Berkeley in 1865 to envision a college campus and the subdivision surrounding Piedmont Way, he was aware of the wonders of Strawberry Canyon. He foresaw that the gracious “civilized” neighborhoods of homes and parks would contrast with the beauty of the wild Canyon “following a stream of water from the open landscape of the bay region into the midst of the mountains” and be shaped by the “steep declivities of the Coast Range.”                        In the 1930’s a formidable group of leading East Bay citizens organized a bond measure to create the East Bay Regional Park system. To prepare for the bond campaign Duncan McDuffie, who by then had subdivided the Claremont area, used his personal influence to engage the Olmsted Brothers to prepare a “Report on Proposed Park Reservations for East Bay Cities.” The Report clearly established the value of the Coast Range, including Strawberry Canyon — “a contiguous border of scenic land, most of which is too rugged for industrial or extensive residential purposes, but possessed of a high recreational value.” Strawberry Canyon, acquired in stages by the University since the1850s, slipped out of the park reservation plan during and after the Second World War when there was the need for secret research sites. Today such secrecy is not a priority, but, rather, preservation of our diminishing natural resources is an urgent concern.  We are beginning to understand the need for open spaces that are wild and adjacent to urban centers.   

                                                                                                    

                                                                                   

Building Up Strawberry Canyon (continued)

            It is difficult to understand why there aren’t more suitable sites where ambitious industrial type research facilities might be entirely appropriate, such as at the University-owned Richmond Field Station, near Albany and the charm of the Bay shoreline, designated for such purposes.  A citizens’ group called Save Strawberry Canyon seeks to preserve and protect the watershed lands and historic landscape of Strawberry Canyon.  It was formed out of an urgent need to take action, including giving support to legal action, in response to the threats of intrusive, inappropriate development of the Canyon lands.  To join, send a check for $10 to Save Strawberry Canyon, P. O. Box 1234, Berkeley CA 947018

Prepared by CENA members on the committee to Save Strawberry Canyon

 

Article 2:   E-mails from our Members:  Remodeling of Safeway store: College & Claremont

Kelly Barrett, Alcatraz Avenue, writes:  At the March 18 meeting, concerns were expressed which seemed to cluster in three areas:  preservation of the current “village atmosphere” through appropriate scale, architectural style, and setback; environmental impacts during and after expansion, such as air, noise and light pollution; multi-use urban development considerations. The size of the store seemed to be the central driver of the other issues. Safeway’s current proposal has roof top parking and covers most of the existing lot, including the corner 76 gas station site. A neighbor spoke about  the Oakland neighborhood’s effort to shape the renovation of Safeway on Grand Avenue.  He explained that it was a protracted effort, but in the end they substantially reduced the size and characteristics of the store.  I realize that there has been a lot of discussion in various groups, but has anyone documented a unified vision from the community as to what a renovated Safeway could bring to our neighborhood? If anyone is interested in a blog to brainstorm and define a unified vision together, please contact me at lists@madzoga.com.

Chrissy Hoffman, Russell Street, writes: This is a store that has barely changed since we shopped there as kids.  It is in a developed area and I see no reason why Safeway shouldn’t be able to upgrade the working environment for their employees.  That said, I hope they are considerate of the neighborhood. I would expect communications on the process, how it will affect traffic, and any environmental and/or health issues which might result.

Robin Dean, College Avenue, writes: Remodeling Safeway is a fantastic idea; all power to them! If they don’t remain competitive with fancy stores like Trader Joe’s, they will go out of business here, and we’ll lose another grocery store.

Susie Aaron, Lewiston Avenue, writes:  We feel the Safeway project in its current form would be a detriment and not an enhancement to our neighborhood. Its large scale will affect long established neighborhood shops on College Ave. There is no need for a behemoth chain store dominating the neighborhood.  Second, and very important, is the negative impact on traffic and parking in an already congested neighborhood.  We could only support Safeway’s project if it is scaled back in size with only a few additional parking spaces. Customers should be encouraged to walk or use public transportation. We appreciate a mix of retail and housing but only if it means deepening community ties, and adds neighborhood ambience.

As it stands, my family cannot support remodeling plans without further community input and revision.

Ben Bagdikian, Stonewall Road, writes: My understanding is that Safeway plans an enormous multi-level expansion, with the top level as a parking lot, and expanded functions.  Among them would be a full service pharmacy which threatens the Chimes drug store, that has provided valuable personal service and advice with two certified pharmacists.

Dean Metzger, Hazel Road, writes:  Safeway’s long overdue remodeling of their store sounds like a good thing, but the details are a problem for many who live in the area.  Safeway has purchased the 76 gas station and will use the land for parking. The last plans available to the public show a 55,000 sq.ft. store with roof parking. The current store is 22,000 sq. ft. CENA and Oakland neighbors have met with them to try to convince them not to build a super store and to trim it closer to the square footage of the existing store, and to develop the project to fit with existing businesses on College Ave.

Michael Mayer, Alcatraz Avenue, writes:  A store which would essentially fill the existing footprint of the current store, plus most of its parking lot and the 76 station, would be out of scale with the rest of the area.  The lack of setback would crowd the entire block, resulting in less sun getting through to neighboring shops. The notion of having trucks exit onto College is ludicrous.  It’s a tight street already, with parking on both sides which makes it more difficult for tight turns.

Larry Baack, Brookside Drive, writes:  Concerns are: the scale of the new store is too big for the neighborhood; the 76 station is an important local service station and repair place; negative impact on smaller food stores; increased traffic with people coming from outside the neighborhood and speeding on Claremont.

 

Thank  you  all  for  your e-mails.  Please note  that  they  have  been  edited for size, to include  as many  as  possible.8

                                                                                      

 

 

 Article 3:                               Claremont Court 100 Years Ago   

 

                        The Claremont-Elmwood neighborhood has quietly slipped into the “100 year old” category, at least in part.  In March, the Claremont Book Club celebrated with an elegant dinner in St.Clement’s Palache Hall where members of the Book Club, paused to recognize the creation of the Claremont Court with a 100^th birthday party.

                        A neighborhood within a neighborhood, the original Claremont Court lies approximately between St. Clement’s Church and Derby Street with the original boundaries marked by beautiful brick columns. It was created from the farms of Judge John Garber’s family and the family of James and Helen Palache.  The subdivision of about 200 lots was recorded in 1907 and the Claremont Court Company sold 2,500 shares at $100 per share to investors.  The developers hired John Galen Howard to design the magnificent entry gates at Russell and Claremont Boulevard and other street markers to attract architects to build in the community.  By the end of 1907 the gates had been built, streets were graded and construction of homes began in 1908. St. Clement’s Church was built in 1909.

                        Though much has changed, the original Palache homestead still stands as does the house built in 1894 for Judge Garber’s daughter, who married the son of the Palaches.  The greatest change that Claremont Court has seen since its inception has been the re-alignment of traffic patterns, causing considerable numbers of travelers to use the main boulevard, but the spirit of the original planners and architects can still be seen at every turn.

                        To celebrate the Court’s 100th birthday, the Claremont Court Gates Restoration committee is restoring the original lamps atop the classical brick pillars of the entrance gates.  The gates were designated a City of Berkeley landmark in May, 2005. Unfortunately, the original lamps in the shape of large globes encased in a metal frame were lost many years ago and replaced by modern aluminum lamps.  The committee has been in touch with an architect to establish a cost for the project.  All  it  takes  now  is to raise the funds  for  drawings  and  manufacture of new  lamps  which will faithfully replicate the original.

To join  in  this celebration, please  send a  note to   gates@claremontelmwood.org,   and  tell us you  are  interested. 

Or write to   CENA, P. O. Box 5108, Berkeley CA 94705.8           By Wendy Markel

 

 

Article 4:                                  Real Estate – Is the Sky Really Falling? 

            These days, real estate is often a topic of conversation, and with the media talking almost daily about the mortgage crisis and foreclosures people often ask me – how is the market?  Are things as bad as they say on the news?  People who ask me these questions seem surprised and relieved when I say that our real estate team is busy and the market remains strong and stable in our neighborhoods.  Just yesterday, we talked about the fact that over 65 percent of our company’s homes sold with more than one offer and many were significantly over the asking price.

            When homes sell over the asking price with multiple offers this is usually because of a variety of elements, the most important being location, quality of construction and remodeling.  Buyers are looking carefully these days and have more to say.  What they want is move-in condition or cosmetic fixer-uppers that need just a small amount of work.  If you are planning to sell, now is the time to fix that roof and foundation, clean up the yard and make your home look its best.

            We are fortunate to live in the bay area, close to San Francisco where our economy remains strong and our quality of life and the resources we have through the University continue to keep Berkeley high on the list for people looking for a home.  The Claremont-Elmwood neighborhoods of Berkeley remain highly desirable for their architectural beauty and close proximity within walking distance to stores, restaurants, the University and BART. 8

By Colette Ford & Anja Plowright for the Grubb Co. 

 

 

Article 5:                            Bus Rapid Transit on Telegraph Avenue Update

          Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is AC Transit’s plan to dedicate two traffic lanes on Telegraph Avenue to bus-only use and restrict automobile and truck traffic to one lane in each direction.  The CENA Board of Directors has voted to oppose the plan and ask the City to adopt the no-build option in the DEIR because there is no other alternative.  CENA members attended a neighborhood meeting in March to learn more about BRT.  As an alternative to BRT, most CENA members agree with a proposed Rapid Bus Plus system, which would not require dedicated lanes and would cost a fraction of BRT.

            An initiative drive has been launched to put the issue of dedicated lanes for transit on Berkeley’s streets on the November ballot. It states that before the City can give away the public right-of-way, the citizens of Berkeley must approve the plan by vote. CENA encourages you to support this initiative and secure your right to have a say in the matter. 8

 

Article 6:                             Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore Project Update 

            CENA, as a member of the Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore Coalition (FBC), joined a lawsuit last fall regarding Caltrans Final EIR for the Caldecott Improvement Project.  The Coalition’s intent is not to stop the project, but to get appropriate mitigations for the project’s impacts.  Among the charges are that Caltrans violated environmental laws by failing to fully disclose environmental impacts, failing to adequately consider alternatives, and failing to adequately identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce the project’s significant impacts.  CENA decided to participate in this suit because relieving congestion at the tunnel will impact neighborhood areas that overlook Highway 24 as well as major neighborhood streets that serve as primary traffic conduits to and from the tunnel; traffic engineers have agreed with this assessment. Caltrans suggested FBC attempt to settle the case; the parties agreed to stay the lawsuit and started settlement discussions in January 2008. The stay expired on April 7 and the lawsuit is moving forward, but settlement discussions continue. 8

                   

                                               

 

 

 

 

                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                               

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

             

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

       

Article 2:                          Garber Path Restoration   by Jennifer Nice

            Garber Path, on Garber Street just above Emerson School, is a distinctive pathway in Berkeley, with two paths bordered by large plots of land and steps where many people walk daily.  The purpose of the Garber Path Restoration project is to refurbish the path for present and future generations.  Repairing the cement steps and creating a pathway on the land portion will vastly improve accessibility for all walkers, bikers and people with strollers.  After decades of neglect, a new planned landscape of firescape and drought resistant plants is central to the plan.

            After two years of work, a neighborhood volunteer group has secured community support. The City of Berkeley will repair the existing irrigation system ($3,000), Planning Department will give a permit for the step repair ($225), and the UC Botanical Garden will assist in landscaping.  Bids for plants and cement repair are still outstanding.

            Our stated goal is to maintain the historical integrity of the pathway and create an inviting public space.  Please join your neighbors in finishing this project by making a donation of any amount.  CENA will be our sponsor and will accept all financial donations. Please make checks payable to CENA and send to P. O. Box 5108, Berkeley CA 94705.  Write “Garber Path Project” on your check. Volunteers for preparation, planting and maintenance are also needed. Contact jennifernice@gmail.com.8

 

 Page 1

 

Article 3:  UCB Underhill Parking Facility

        That hole in the ground at College Avenue between Channing Way and Haste is nearly filled. This means the new UCB parking garage with the playing field on top will open soon, most likely by the beginning of the fall term.  What does this mean for the CENA neighborhood?  The asset is that about 1,000 new parking spaces will be available to UCB’s staff which could relieve the pressure on our neighborhood street parking.  However, since UCB charges for parking, many will still try to find free parking in the surrounding streets.

        The liability is that we will have 1,000 more cars going to and from the new garage daily.  College Avenue, the Belrose-Derby-Warring corridor and Ashby Avenue are already gridlocked during the morning and evening rush hours.  This will make matters worse.  CENA will review the issues, both good and bad after the garage opens.  Look for more information in the fall. 8

 

Article 4:  Q & A on UC Expansion Court Challenge

        UC Berkeley has proposed vast construction projects which will bring major new development to the southeast portion of  Campus.    The CENA neighborhood, as well as  Panoramic  Hill  and Dwight-Hillside neighborhoods are ill suited to accommodate commercial projects of this nature.

Several lawsuits are in progress in an effort to alter UCB’s plans. Following are Q & A about the suits:

What is the status of the lawsuits now?

Answer:        In January, a preliminary injunction barred the University from moving forward with the projects until the cases can be heard in court. The judge stated that the suits have shown a sufficiently strong likelihood of success to justify the injunction.  The University is currently producing the back- ground paperwork.  The lawsuits will be heard during the summer.

Are the lawsuits trying to stop the University from doing ANY expansion?

Answer:  No.  The purpose of the lawsuits is to get the University to do its planning in a way that reduces impacts from the expansion and follow the laws of the State of California.                              

What are the laws that the suits are based on?

Answer:  First, the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA. This law requires that planning for a project adequately study and take into consideration negative impacts from a project, such as increased traffic, noise, impacts on businesses, impacts on historic resources, impacts on city services, impacts on plants and animals, construction impacts, and changes in how and when existing facilities are used.

Second, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.  This law was passed in the 1970’s to prevent      irresponsible construction on top of active earthquake faults because it increases the burden on taxpayers and insurance companies after an earthquake and weakens our economy.

How many lawsuits are there?

Answer:  There are four lawsuits filed by the City of Berkeley, the Panoramic Hill Association, the California Oak Foundation and the Save the Tightwad Hill group. The first three suits have been “consolidated” and are being heard together at the same time, but the three petitioners will continue to represent their individual claims.

How does the oak grove fit into this?

Answer:  The lawsuits are based on a long list of issues of which the oaks is only a single part.  The proposed cutting of 38 Coast Live Oaks is just one of the many impacts from the expansion plans which was not studied by the University.  The oaks can be protected by law in Berkeley.8                                    By Mike Kelly

 

Article 5:  Letters to the Editor

 To the Editor:    Almost ten years ago, in July of 1997, the City and the University entered into an agreement, entitled Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which was written in response to citizen concerns over the drastic expansion of Harmon Gym, Cal’s basketball venue known as Haas Pavilion.  A lengthy segment of the MOU dealt with traffic, circulation and parking.  From CENA’s perspective, the following steps to reduce traffic impacts appeared promising:

• New signage on Hwy. 24 directing traffic on major corridors (not the neighborhoods).
• Removal of Tunnel/Ashby from the State Highway system.

 

 

Page 2

• New origination and destination studies and traffic counts.
• Reducing traffic on Tunnel Road and the Belrose-Derby-Warring corridor.
• Reconverting one-way streets in the south Campus to two-way traffic.

        It is unclear whether the first two items were ever carried out.  What is clear is that the origination and destination studies and traffic counts were never conducted. Instead, the parties opted to contract with the the firm of Nelson/Nygaard which, supplied with old traffic data, produced a sleek booklet, a Transportation Demand Management Study advocating mixed use housing on and near transit corridors and other tired and familiar means to reduce automobile use.

         Ten years after the signing of the MOU, traffic relief for CENA’s heavily traveled roads has not occurred.

To the contrary, the fall reopening of the Underhill parking facility plus the University’s

plan for a new 1,200 car garage next to Memorial Stadium guarantees a continuance of the steady stream of cars past the homes of many of our CENA neighbors.  Sincerely, Doris E. Willingham  8

 

 

 Article 6:              Your Tax Rate - City of Berkeley Budget – 2007 to 2009

                        The City Council will determine your tax rate for the next 2 years.  The City Manager says that a special tax increase for sewer repairs and public safety will probably be placed on the November 2008 ballot.  The City Council may also raise fees on your property taxes.  No public vote is required on this, same as last time.  The City budget is a very complicated document, but the citizens of Berkeley deserve to be told where their money is being spent.  Please take the time to get involved in the process.  The City Council will adopt the new two year budget on June 26, 2007.  Here are some statistics:

            Population of Berkeley:105,385                                                People with no high school diploma:      8%

            Average household size: 2.16 persons                           People with no college degree:              24%

            Average family size: 2.80 persons                                              People with associate degree:                4%

            Median household income:  $44,485.                                     People with bachelor or              

            (Includes students with no income)                                              professional degree:                            64%

 

                        The city budget is currently $278 million; there is pressure to spend more money.  Berkeley continues to be the highest taxed city for its size in California; over twice as much.  Berkeley continues to have the highest ratio of city employees to residents than all other cities around us, which is a 1 to 60 ratio.  This remains despite the fact that the city has eliminated 149 full time positions from the budget calculations.   Dates to mark on your calendar:

May 8:    Workshop before the City Council to present the budget.       5:00 PM           City Council Chambers

May 9:    City budget book available from the Finance Department: $25.00 per copy

May 22:  Public Hearing #1:                                                                  7:00 PM           City Council Chambers

June 19:  Public Hearing #2:                                                                  7:00 PM           City Council Chambers

June 26:  City Council to adopt budget and adopt tax rates                    7:00 PM  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                           

                                                

 

                       

                

 

 

 

 

END