Stop the demolition of the historic UA theaterRead or Edit the Letter Dear Berkeley Mayor and City Council: Re: Appeal of Use Permit ZP2023-0079, 2274 Shattuck Ave. I am writing to demand the Mayor and City Council follow the law and due process and not let a developer tear down the magnificent United Artists theater in downtown Berkeley, a paragon of Art Deco architecture built by Hollywood icons Mary Pickford and Charlie Chaplin. The palatial four-story theater is a "historical resource" under state law—as well as a local landmark and National Register-eligible—meaning city leaders cannot let a developer demolish it without extensive review. Operating from 1932 until February 2023, the UA Berkeley is one of the finest Art Deco theaters in the Bay Area and is still resplendent with irreplaceable architectural and decorative features throughout. It was built as an opulent vaudeville theater with a stage, dressing rooms, green room, and orchestra pit—features that were retained behind the multiplex’s partitions. The question before the Mayor and City Council is not whether to build housing on the UA site. The question is whether the law and due process were followed by the staff and zoning board leading to the approval of the development project. The answer is a resounding NO. There’s no escaping this fundamental fact: the UA is on the California Register of Historical Resources, which means it has protections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Mayor and City Council must examine—and act to rectify—the legally dubious and nontransparent planning process that led to the project's approval. After months of keeping the public in the dark, in October city staff handed the developer a full end-run around CEQA under a new, broadly written law, AB 1633—despite having obtained two peer-review reports from experts that show the ENTIRE theater is a historical resource under the law and should be shielded from swift destruction. Not only were these crucial evaluations — paid for by taxpayers —not made public until after the fateful exemption was granted; they were not even given to the zoning board for the December meeting, nor were they referenced in the huge staff report meant to help board members make informed decisions. Usually the zoning board considers and votes on a project’s eligibility for a CEQA exemption; this time, the city staff granted it preemptively and essentially told the zoning board it had no choice but to approve the project. The city appears to be ignoring the fact that the CEQA statute contains EXCEPTIONS to categorical exemptions, including when a proposed project will result in a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of the historical resource, as is the case with the UA. (This is true despite the raft of new pro-housing laws designed to cradle a project to quick approval without interference from pesky citizens or their leaders.) The CEQA review process, which the city initially outlined for the project in January 2024, would allow for more public input on the project as well as analysis of ways to mitigate the impact on the theater. There could be ways to balance the interests of the developer against preserving a landmark building protected by state law—but they were never explored. The city robbed the theater—and the public—of this process when it granted the CEQA exemption. What should have been an informed deliberation turned out to be a sham. In the big picture, the citizens of Berkeley and the surrounding region are alarmed to see complacent city leaders give up control over planning of the downtown, which is now a wasteland of shuttered or leveled cinemas. City leaders should remember that the Downtown Area Plan is still in effect and calls for the support and retention of downtown movie theaters. Many other city records, including a 2015 historical survey of the downtown, show the UA to be listed as historically significant. Save the UA Berkeley recognizes that housing construction is important and that the state Housing Element requires municipalities to turn goals into action. However, please note that when the city took an inventory of hundreds of properties on which to build to meet this requirement, it did not put the UA theater site on the list. City officials should also remember that developers have a record of demolishing buildings only to abandon their plans for one reason or another. This is particularly salient at a time of economic uncertainty under Trump. The apparently defunct development project that leveled the beloved Shattuck Cinemas, leaving a city block looking like a war zone, is a cautionary example. Leaders should also dismiss the developer's bad-faith gripes about structural issues with the building. Such concerns are minor, easily surmountable and most importantly: they are not of concern to the council in considering this appeal. Some say letting the UA live on for future generations is too costly. But the truth is, it would be far too expensive to build a theater of this size, quality, and incomparable detail today. Cities around the country that have restored their historic theaters—including Oakland—have never regretted their decisions. Berkeley’s own studies show that cultural and artistic offerings are key to economic vitality. The UA Berkeley could be renewed as a glorious live performance venue on par with the Paramount in Oakland. Or it could continue as a movie house or something in between. The possibilities are plentiful, but not if this historic landmark is DESTROYED! City leaders, the fate the UA rests in your hands. Please DO THE RIGHT THING. Don't cave in to legal threats from a developer that does not have the law on its side. Follow the law and due process and stop the developer from rushing to destroy this invaluable landmark building. You can add formatting using markdown syntax - read more BCC yourself Sign Now 690 signatures Join us You’ll receive periodic email telling you what is going on and suggesting ways you can help. You can unsubscribe anytime – but we hope you won’t. Thank you for signing up! Name Email Sign UP Follow
