Science Lab Compromise

After many weeks of debate, the issue of the proposed reconfiguration of science labs at Berkeley High School remains unsettled. At a School Board meeting Wednesday, February 3, Berkeley Unified School District Superintendent Bill Huyett stated that recommendations about the reallocation of Berkeley Schools Excellence Project (BSEP) funds from zero and seventh period labs to Equity Grants would have to be made both by himself and the BSEP Planning and Oversight committee before the item will come before the Board for decision in the Spring. A new, compromised proposal on the lab issue, created by Huyett to preserve extra lab time for most AP/IB science classes, is also on the table.

The incorporation of labs into the regular school day was outlined in the Action Plan for next school year, put forward by Principal Jim Slemp and BHS Teacher Leaders in late 2009. The provision in question would incorporate zero and seventh period labs into the regular school day, freeing up the BSEP parcel tax revenue which currently maintains the labs. These funds would be used for a new system of Equity Grants, designating money for various programs supporting academic equity at BHS.

The proposed change has drawn opposition from some science teachers, students, and other community members, many of whom fear that reductions in instructional time will damage the school’s science program and decrease success in more advanced courses.

In addition to academic concerns, the proposed reconfiguration of labs has brought up issues of proper School Governance Council (SGC) procedure and use of BSEP resources.

“There are still a lot of questions about this proposal that need to be hammered out,” explained Board President Karen Hemphill, leading up to the Board’s discussion of the Action Plan.

In an attempt to mitigate the recent controversy, Huyett met with BHS science teachers, Slemp, and other administrators over the past several weeks to inform the development of a compromised proposal.

On Monday, January 25, a meeting was held to consider the next steps for Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan (DAP). The downtown includes University and Shattuck Avenues, an area which sees regular traffic from Berkeley High School students. A final version of the DAP was passed last July, after much debate about its various provisions, but signatures from those opposed to some of its content brought about a referendum. Various opinions on how the development of the plan should progress continued during the recent meeting.

The plan that was passed in July focused on development, allowing taller buildings and height exceptions for buildings that provide public services, especially hotels. Green building and reduction of emissions was also a concern for the new plan. Designers of the plan hoped that the new plan would strengthen the economy of Berkeley’s downtown, and that the street and space changes would bring in more customers. Historic preservation was taken into account as well.

However, this plan was met with opposition from certain community members. Many of the dissenters voiced support for an earlier draft of the plan, created principally by the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC). Some sectors of the Berkeley community felt that the tall buildings and new technology would create an unappealing place to live and there were enough objections that the necessary signatures were collected to pass a referendum.

The passage of the referendum created two options — a new plan can be developed over the following months, different from the plan passed in July, or the City can wait until a June vote by Berkeley citizens on whether the July plan should be put into effect. Until a decision is made regarding the plan, the Downtown plan from 1990 will remain.
Two city council members and various other authorities, discussed options for Downtown development at the Aurora Theater and debated the next steps for the city. The meeting was scheduled to begin at 7:00 PM; the theater opened at 6:30 PM for poster board displays.

When the meeting commenced, almost all the seats were filled. Most people held flyers they’d been given at the door, which included an invitation to the presentation of the “Strawberry Creek Proposal,” a plan for Center Street to be designed by an urbanist; and a sheet entitled, “Downzone the Whole Damn Downtown.”

Gary Binger, codirector of the Center for a Sustainable California, moderated the discussion, and began by summarizing points from each group. Those who supported the plan in referendum went first, starting with Laurie Capitelli. Representing District 5 on the City Council, he said that the first priority should be making the cost of living cheaper. For young adults who grew up in Berkeley, he explained that staying close to parents and in a familiar neighborhood is ideal. But inexperienced professionals in the tough economy struggle to afford apartments, let alone houses. While Capitelli encouraged downsizing on the whole, he supported the suspended plan because he thought it would make housing more affordable.

Tim Frank spoke next as an environmental consultant. He said that green development was important, but tall buildings especially will solve many problems. They could provide more housing and decrease the cost of Berkeley units, house the workforce, and decrease the transportation costs and emissions from the people who drive into Berkeley from other cities to work. The buildings would pay for themselves with the rent, so money could eventually go into maintaining sidewalks. This would prioritize pedestrians who would come to the Downtown and spend money and rejuvenate the Downtown and struggling small businesses.

Joel Ramos, who works at a company called TransForm, said that more affordable housing would create social equity and decrease traffic. Summarized by Binger, those who support the plan in referendum want affordable housing, street improvements, green development and transit, and taller buildings to generate revenue.

On the other side of the issue was Council member Jesse Arreguin. He began by saying he didn’t support the plan because it was illogical, and that housing would not be made more affordable because the apartments would have high rents. The new housing wouldn’t bring in families, said Arreguin, because most Berkeley families can’t compete with four college students whose parents are footing the bill. Finally, he stated that taller buildings would not be worth the negative visual effect, because buildings that are pushing for more stories rarely have sufficient public benefits to justify their height.

Patty Dacey, from DAPAC, expressed a concern for safety in the Downtown. While pro–development voices say that density will bring vibrancy, life, and cash to the city, Dacey stated that this approach would lead to an increase in drugs and crime. Instead of trying to house the workforce downtown, Dacey argued, Berkeley should encourage students to live in the area.

Finally, the man who handed out the “Downzoning” flyers, Fred Dosworth, spoke. He spoke energetically about the problems with the plan, saying that it pandered to the interests of UC Berkeley and developers. Dosworth proposed downsizing all building to four stories, quoting his opposition to the “Manhattanization” of Berkeley. Dosworth thinks that Berkeley should be moving in the opposite direction from the July 14 plan.

More meetings will take place as different parties try to move towards a compromise, or decide on another cource of action. Considering the level of controversy that DAP has drawn, it is likely reaching a consensus will remain a priority for the city in coming months.