http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110117142512.htm
ScienceDaily (Jan. 18, 2011)
For emergency planning purposes, scientists unveiled a hypothetical California scenario that describes a storm that could produce up to 10 feet of rain, cause extensive flooding (in many cases overwhelming the state's flood-protection system) and result in more than $300 billion in damage.
The "ARkStorm Scenario," prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey and released at the ARkStorm Summit in Sacramento on Jan. 13-14, combines prehistoric geologic flood history in California with modern flood mapping and climate-change projections to produce a hypothetical, but plausible, scenario aimed at preparing the emergency response community for this type of hazard.
The USGS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the California Emergency Management Agency convened the two-day summit to engage stakeholders from across California to take action as a result of the scenario's findings, which were developed over the last two years by more than 100 scientists and experts.
"The ARkStorm scenario is a complete picture of what that storm would do to the social and economic systems of California," said Lucy Jones, chief scientist of the USGS Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project and architect of ARkStorm. "We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as our big San Andreas earthquakes. The ARkStorm is essentially two historic storms (January 1969 and February 1986) put back to back in a scientifically plausible way. The model is not an extremely extreme event."
Jones noted that the largest damages would come from flooding -- the models estimate that almost one-fourth of the houses in California would experience some flood damage from this storm.
"The time to begin taking action is now, before a devastating natural hazard event occurs," said USGS Director, Marcia McNutt. "This scenario demonstrates firsthand how science can be the foundation to help build safer communities. The ARkStorm scenario is a scientifically vetted tool that emergency responders, elected officials and the general public can use to plan for a major catastrophic event to help prevent a hazard from becoming a disaster."
To define impacts of the ARkStorm, the USGS, in partnership with the California Geological Survey, created the first statewide landslide susceptibility maps for California that are the most detailed landslide susceptibility maps ever created. The project also resulted in the first physics-based coastal storm modeling system for analyzing severe storm impacts (predicting wave height and coastal erosion) under present-day scenarios and under various climate-change and sea-level-rise scenarios.
Because the scenario raised serious questions about existing national, state and local disaster policy and emergency management systems, ARkStorm became the theme of the 2010 Extreme Precipitation Symposium at U.C. Davis John Muir Institute of the Environment, attracting over 200 leaders in meteorology and flood management. ARkStorm is part of the efforts to create a National Real-Time Flood Mapping initiative to improve flood management nationwide. ARkStorm also provided a platform for emergency managers, meteorologists and hydrologists to work together to develop a scaling system for west coast storms.
"Cal EMA is proud to partner with the USGS in this important work to protect California from disasters," said Cal EMA Acting Secretary Mike Dayton. "In order to have the most efficient and effective plans and response capabilities, we have to have the proper science to base it on. Californians are better protected because of the scientific efforts of the United States Geological Survey."
According to FEMA Region IX Director, Nancy Ward, "The ARkStorm report will prove to be another invaluable tool in engaging the whole of our community in addressing flood emergencies in California. It is entirely possible that flood control infrastructure and mitigation efforts could be overwhelmed by the USGS ARkStorm scenario, and the report suggests ways forward to limit the damage that is sure to result."
The two-day summit included professional flood managers, emergency mangers, first responders, business continuity managers, forecasters, hydrologists and decision makers. Many of the scientists responsible for coordinating the ARkStorm scenario presented the science behind the scenario, including meteorology, forecasting, flood modeling, landslides and physical and economic impacts.
The ARkStorm Scenario is the second scenario from the USGS Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project led by Jones, which earlier created the ShakeOut earthquake scenario.
More information about the ARkStorm Summit is online(http://urbanearth.usgs.gov/arkstorm-summit/).
The ARkStorm Scenario, USGS Open-File Report 2010-1312, is also online (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/).
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Bates and Kamlarz Push Berkeley into Bankruptcy.
Original column here
Daniel Borenstein: Berkeley benefit debt at least $310 million
By Daniel Borenstein as published in the Contra Costa Times.
TWO YEARS ago, as Berkeley City Council members gave City Manager Phil Kamlarz a hefty salary increase, they credited him with running a fiscally sound organization.
"We are in better fiscal shape than virtually any other jurisdiction in the Bay Area and I would suggest even California," Councilman Laurie Capitelli declared.
But a report by City Auditor Ann-Marie Hogan and new numbers from the California Public Employees' Retirement System show that the city has an unfunded liability for promised employee benefits of $310 million.
That's equal to more than two years of city general fund revenues. It works out to about $197,000 for every full-time city employee. Taxpayers must pay it off, at a cost of about $3,000 for every city resident.
The city has spent beyond its means, racking up huge debt that will be pushed onto future generations. They will be forced to choose between more taxes -- in a city that's already paying some of the highest -- and fewer services.
The biggest factors driving the debt are the city's unfunded liability for a pension plan that allows some workers to collect more in retirement than on the job; overly generous promises of health care coverage for police in retirement; and a ridiculous vacation and sick leave accrual policy that costs the city millions and enables employees to spike their pensions.
If anything, the estimates are conservative because the city's pension liability, the biggest part of the debt, is calculated by CalPERS. The state retirement agency's formulas don't yet include much of the investment losses of the past 21/2 years and make overly optimistic assumptions about future investment returns. Indeed, Berkeley's total debt might be as much as $200 million more.
As the full effect of investment losses is folded into the calculations, city benefit costs will escalate. They will also increase if the city begins to address its badly underfunded retiree health care program.
Hogan estimates those increases -- not the total annual payments, just the increases -- that are expected during the next five years will force the city to eliminate 63 full-time positions, or about 4 percent of the workforce.
Pensions
Because of the mounting pension debt, the city will be forced to divert more city funds to its retirement program in future years. For every dollar the city pays in police salaries, it pays another 36 cents for pensions. That number is expected to increase to 51 cents by 2016. For firefighters, the cost is 25 cents on the dollar, expected to rise to about 44 cents in five years. And for other city workers, the cost is 24 cents on the dollar, expected to increase to 34 cents.
Part of the blame can be placed on investment losses. But the cost is driven in large part by lucrative pension benefits that allow police and firefighters to retire starting at age 50 with 3 percent of top salary for each year of work. Thus the pension for a 30-year employee starts at 90 percent of salary and has an annual cost-of-living adjustment.
Other city employees can retire at age 55 and collect about 2.92 percent of salary for every year worked. Thus, someone who worked in government for 35 years can receive a starting pension of 102 percent of salary. That's right: That employee will collect more in retirement than on the job. (Kamlarz, the city manager, is one of those workers.)
Retiree health care
The city also provides retirement health care. The program for police is exceptionally costly because the city directly pays its retired officers with 20 years' experience an amount equal to the total cost of Kaiser coverage for two people, regardless of the rising costs of health care and regardless of whether the retirees have spouses or partners. That might have been affordable two decades ago, when the deal was first negotiated, but the rapidly rising price of health care has dramatically driven up the cost of the program.
Moreover, the payments continue at the full rate even after the retired officer becomes eligible for Medicare and could obtain a much less-costly Kaiser plan.
This poorly thought-out benefit is exacerbated because the money is paid to the retirees in cash rather than directly to the health care insurer, making the payment taxable to the retiree. In essence, a large chunk of the money is wastefully lost to state and federal taxes.
While promising these health-care benefits, the city has only set aside 13 percent of the money it should have to fund it. It's like promising a pension and not putting anything into savings in advance. As a result, future generations will pay for the health care of today's workers when they retire.
Vacation and sick leave
Berkeley city employees may accrue up to 320 hours of vacation time and 1,600 hours of sick leave. Firefighters and police can accrue up to 360 hours of vacation time and have no cap on accrued sick leave.
At retirement, they can cash out all vacation time and up to 50 percent of sick leave. Or, they can apply all their unused sick leave to service credit for calculating their pensions.
For someone with 30 years' service and the full 1,600 hours of sick leave that boosts his pension by about 2.7 percent for the rest of his life.
The accruals create two problems. First, they build up a liability that must be paid in the future. In 2009, the city paid departing employees $1.47 million for unused sick leave, vacation and related benefits. Second, they drive up pension costs. Both are bad.
And both are avoidable. Vacation should be taken each year and sick leave should only be for illnesses. "Use it or lose it" policies are common in the private sector. Berkeley should do the same.
Daniel Borenstein is a Contra Costa Times staff columnist and editorial writer. Reach him at 925-943-8248 or email him at dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com
republished here under the fair use laws
Daniel Borenstein: Berkeley benefit debt at least $310 million
By Daniel Borenstein as published in the Contra Costa Times.
TWO YEARS ago, as Berkeley City Council members gave City Manager Phil Kamlarz a hefty salary increase, they credited him with running a fiscally sound organization.
"We are in better fiscal shape than virtually any other jurisdiction in the Bay Area and I would suggest even California," Councilman Laurie Capitelli declared.
But a report by City Auditor Ann-Marie Hogan and new numbers from the California Public Employees' Retirement System show that the city has an unfunded liability for promised employee benefits of $310 million.
That's equal to more than two years of city general fund revenues. It works out to about $197,000 for every full-time city employee. Taxpayers must pay it off, at a cost of about $3,000 for every city resident.
The city has spent beyond its means, racking up huge debt that will be pushed onto future generations. They will be forced to choose between more taxes -- in a city that's already paying some of the highest -- and fewer services.
The biggest factors driving the debt are the city's unfunded liability for a pension plan that allows some workers to collect more in retirement than on the job; overly generous promises of health care coverage for police in retirement; and a ridiculous vacation and sick leave accrual policy that costs the city millions and enables employees to spike their pensions.
If anything, the estimates are conservative because the city's pension liability, the biggest part of the debt, is calculated by CalPERS. The state retirement agency's formulas don't yet include much of the investment losses of the past 21/2 years and make overly optimistic assumptions about future investment returns. Indeed, Berkeley's total debt might be as much as $200 million more.
As the full effect of investment losses is folded into the calculations, city benefit costs will escalate. They will also increase if the city begins to address its badly underfunded retiree health care program.
Hogan estimates those increases -- not the total annual payments, just the increases -- that are expected during the next five years will force the city to eliminate 63 full-time positions, or about 4 percent of the workforce.
Pensions
Because of the mounting pension debt, the city will be forced to divert more city funds to its retirement program in future years. For every dollar the city pays in police salaries, it pays another 36 cents for pensions. That number is expected to increase to 51 cents by 2016. For firefighters, the cost is 25 cents on the dollar, expected to rise to about 44 cents in five years. And for other city workers, the cost is 24 cents on the dollar, expected to increase to 34 cents.
Part of the blame can be placed on investment losses. But the cost is driven in large part by lucrative pension benefits that allow police and firefighters to retire starting at age 50 with 3 percent of top salary for each year of work. Thus the pension for a 30-year employee starts at 90 percent of salary and has an annual cost-of-living adjustment.
Other city employees can retire at age 55 and collect about 2.92 percent of salary for every year worked. Thus, someone who worked in government for 35 years can receive a starting pension of 102 percent of salary. That's right: That employee will collect more in retirement than on the job. (Kamlarz, the city manager, is one of those workers.)
Retiree health care
The city also provides retirement health care. The program for police is exceptionally costly because the city directly pays its retired officers with 20 years' experience an amount equal to the total cost of Kaiser coverage for two people, regardless of the rising costs of health care and regardless of whether the retirees have spouses or partners. That might have been affordable two decades ago, when the deal was first negotiated, but the rapidly rising price of health care has dramatically driven up the cost of the program.
Moreover, the payments continue at the full rate even after the retired officer becomes eligible for Medicare and could obtain a much less-costly Kaiser plan.
This poorly thought-out benefit is exacerbated because the money is paid to the retirees in cash rather than directly to the health care insurer, making the payment taxable to the retiree. In essence, a large chunk of the money is wastefully lost to state and federal taxes.
While promising these health-care benefits, the city has only set aside 13 percent of the money it should have to fund it. It's like promising a pension and not putting anything into savings in advance. As a result, future generations will pay for the health care of today's workers when they retire.
Vacation and sick leave
Berkeley city employees may accrue up to 320 hours of vacation time and 1,600 hours of sick leave. Firefighters and police can accrue up to 360 hours of vacation time and have no cap on accrued sick leave.
At retirement, they can cash out all vacation time and up to 50 percent of sick leave. Or, they can apply all their unused sick leave to service credit for calculating their pensions.
For someone with 30 years' service and the full 1,600 hours of sick leave that boosts his pension by about 2.7 percent for the rest of his life.
The accruals create two problems. First, they build up a liability that must be paid in the future. In 2009, the city paid departing employees $1.47 million for unused sick leave, vacation and related benefits. Second, they drive up pension costs. Both are bad.
And both are avoidable. Vacation should be taken each year and sick leave should only be for illnesses. "Use it or lose it" policies are common in the private sector. Berkeley should do the same.
Daniel Borenstein is a Contra Costa Times staff columnist and editorial writer. Reach him at 925-943-8248 or email him at dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com
republished here under the fair use laws
Thursday, October 28, 2010
What a livable urban town should look like
A picture perfect example of why I'm against Berkeley's Measure R
click here and see what real livability looks like.
Vote NO! on Measure R.
click here and see what real livability looks like.
Vote NO! on Measure R.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
VOTE NO ON R
Stop Mayor Bates Wrecking Crew!
Measure R is a Trojan Horse that will bring many, many more enormous skyscrapers to downtown Berkeley. It is the nature of development to always push the boundaries. Every building allowed is far more valuable when its much larger.
There is no carbon neutral option when buildings are torn down and replaced. Even the most aggressive LEED standards don't compensate for carbonload dumped into the environment by these destructive practices. Carbon neutral development is creative reuse, not search and destroy development.
Tom Bates and the clown circus that calls itself Livable Berkeley are developer apologists who would happily bulldoze the entire downtown and replace it with canyons of steel for a few more shekels in their own pockets. Mark Rhoades, the former Berkeley Associate Planning Director and his wife are Livable Berkeley and he personally is now attempting to profit from his former position with the city by playing on the alliances he still has within that corrupt department.
Tom Bates and Mark Rhoades are pushing a green-washed developer scam that will destroy downtown Berkeley and severely damage the rest of our community. The Bates machine is trying to bulldoze the community into changing the very character of our lovely city and Manhattanize (Bates term) our small town into the sort of bleak skyscraper wasteland seen in downtown Oakland.
Already UC is adding a million square feet of building and the National Lab is adding another million square feet of building and we can’t do anything about that but we can stop R. The Yes on R folks are claiming their new monstrosities will be green but even a LEED Platinum building will net far more carbon waste over the lifespan of the building than creative reuse of our existing (vacant) retail stock.
Don't let "Chairman Tom" Bates choke a million more feet of non-retail construction into our downtown.
Stop Mayor Bates' Wrecking Crew. VOTE NO ON R
Vote Jasper Kingeter for District 1
Vote for Jesse Arreguin for District 4
Vote Kriss Worthington for District 7
and vote Stewart Jones for District 8 and VOTE NO ON R.
For RENT BOARD vote for the incredible Lisa Stevens of Spiral Gardens, my son Asa Dodsworth, the very committed Jessie Townley, Dave Blake, Katherine Harr, and Pam Webster. STEVENS, TOWNLEY, HARR, WEBSTER & BLAKE are incumbents ...
Regarding SCHOOL BOARD, I voted for Karen Hemphill, Leah Wilson, and Julie Holcomb, all endorsed by the Green Party of Alameda County. The Berkeley Federation of Teachers endorsed Karen Hemphill, Leah Wilson and Josh Daniels.(http://www.berkeleyfederationofteachers.org/campaigns/election-2010/home.chtml)
I met Josh, a local lad and a lawyer, and I came away very, very skeptical. He feigned ignorance about Measure R and he's been endorsed by Gordon Wozniak, the most conservative member of the city council and a major financial supporter of Yes on R, which will destroy Berkeley as we know it. That was enough for me NOT to vote for Josh.
Vote NO on R!! Save Berkeley from Tom Bates' Wrecking Crew!!!
Measure R is a Trojan Horse that will bring many, many more enormous skyscrapers to downtown Berkeley. It is the nature of development to always push the boundaries. Every building allowed is far more valuable when its much larger.
There is no carbon neutral option when buildings are torn down and replaced. Even the most aggressive LEED standards don't compensate for carbonload dumped into the environment by these destructive practices. Carbon neutral development is creative reuse, not search and destroy development.
Tom Bates and the clown circus that calls itself Livable Berkeley are developer apologists who would happily bulldoze the entire downtown and replace it with canyons of steel for a few more shekels in their own pockets. Mark Rhoades, the former Berkeley Associate Planning Director and his wife are Livable Berkeley and he personally is now attempting to profit from his former position with the city by playing on the alliances he still has within that corrupt department.
Tom Bates and Mark Rhoades are pushing a green-washed developer scam that will destroy downtown Berkeley and severely damage the rest of our community. The Bates machine is trying to bulldoze the community into changing the very character of our lovely city and Manhattanize (Bates term) our small town into the sort of bleak skyscraper wasteland seen in downtown Oakland.
Already UC is adding a million square feet of building and the National Lab is adding another million square feet of building and we can’t do anything about that but we can stop R. The Yes on R folks are claiming their new monstrosities will be green but even a LEED Platinum building will net far more carbon waste over the lifespan of the building than creative reuse of our existing (vacant) retail stock.
Don't let "Chairman Tom" Bates choke a million more feet of non-retail construction into our downtown.
Stop Mayor Bates' Wrecking Crew. VOTE NO ON R
Vote Jasper Kingeter for District 1
Vote for Jesse Arreguin for District 4
Vote Kriss Worthington for District 7
and vote Stewart Jones for District 8 and VOTE NO ON R.
For RENT BOARD vote for the incredible Lisa Stevens of Spiral Gardens, my son Asa Dodsworth, the very committed Jessie Townley, Dave Blake, Katherine Harr, and Pam Webster. STEVENS, TOWNLEY, HARR, WEBSTER & BLAKE are incumbents ...
Regarding SCHOOL BOARD, I voted for Karen Hemphill, Leah Wilson, and Julie Holcomb, all endorsed by the Green Party of Alameda County. The Berkeley Federation of Teachers endorsed Karen Hemphill, Leah Wilson and Josh Daniels.(http://www.berkeleyfederationofteachers.org/campaigns/election-2010/home.chtml)
I met Josh, a local lad and a lawyer, and I came away very, very skeptical. He feigned ignorance about Measure R and he's been endorsed by Gordon Wozniak, the most conservative member of the city council and a major financial supporter of Yes on R, which will destroy Berkeley as we know it. That was enough for me NOT to vote for Josh.
Vote NO on R!! Save Berkeley from Tom Bates' Wrecking Crew!!!
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Dear Neighbors,
Berkeley’s pool bond will be on the June 8th ballot. It proposes to replace the indoor warm pool at the Berkeley High School (without identifying a new location), renovate the West Campus and Willard pools, and construct a new multi-purpose (competition) pool at King, at a construction cost of $22,500,000 PLUS annual maintenance of $3,500,000 indexed to the highest rate of inflation.
Berkeley has 15 pools located at schools, universities and membership facilities, not including the boys pool at the BHS. We Berkeleyans like to swim, and we generously support our city, schools and community recreational facilities. We approved $30 million dollars in new taxes in November 2008.
We currently subsidize every warm pool swim by $20, NOT including subsidies from the BUSD and each regular swim by $10. So let’s make reasonable choices that benefit everyone, including swimmers.
It’s the new pool construction -- by far the largest share of this bond -- that doesn’t make sense. The greenest facilities are the ones already built; demolition and construction burn fossil fuels, choke landfills and waste resources. Rehabilitating all existing pools would require only 1/3 the cost of building new.
The BHS warm pool, as part of a nationally landmarked district, should be reused and not demolished. If rehab is off the table, let’s give those swimmers free passes to either the YMCA’s three pools- regular, (80-82 degrees F) warm (84-86 degrees F) and therapeutic (90-92 degrees F) or UC’s community program for the disabled--Cal Stars at the Recreation Sports Facility (RSF), which also operates a warm pool. Just like BUSD uses the YMCA warm pool for its own disabled students. Free memberships for Berkeleyans, who use the BHS warm/therapeutic pool and need a therapeutic pool would be less than 1% of the bond’s maintenance cost, let alone the enormous construction cost.
The YMCA and UC pools are available to our community, meeting the needs of nearly all warm water pool swimmers: children, adults, pregnant, obese, arthritic, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, in accordance with the Aquatic Exercise Association (AEA), the world’s largest certifying organization for aquatic fitness programming. *The AEA does not recommend the use of pools above 86 degrees except for limited functions, as there is a risk of overheating, stroke or heart attack. In fact, the AEA makes the following water temperature recommendations for these populations:
Competitive Swimming, 77-82.4 degrees F
Resistance Training, 83-86 degrees F
Therapy & Rehab 91-95 F (Aquatic Therapy & Rehab Institute/ATRI, Low function program, cooler temperatures may be more appropriate for higher intensity programs and specific populations)
Multiple Sclerosis, 80-84 degrees F
Pregnancy, 83-85 degrees F
Arthritis, 84-88 degrees F, (Arthritis Foundation)
Older Adults, 86-90 degrees F (Low function program. ATRI)
Older Adults, 83-86 degrees F, (Moderate to high intensity)
Older Adults, 86-88 degrees F, (Low intensity)
Children fitness, 83-86 degrees F
Children swim lessons--varies with age, 84-89 degrees F (when available)
Obese, 80-86 degrees F
Pools with a depth of 3-5 feet will accommodate nearly all heights of participants in a water fitness class. The AEA’s guidelines are incorporated into the City of Berkeley’s Citywide Pools Master Plan.
So who should be using a pool at 92 degrees, like the bond would replace? Very Few. And those few, can swim in the YMCA pools as they have in the past, when the BHS warm pool (more accurately, hot/therapeutic pool) has undergone repairs or during school closures or the UC warm pool.
If Berkeley needs an additional warm water pool, should it be at the proposed 2,250 square feet, a Jr. Olympic sized pool, kept at an energy-consumptive 92 degrees? If you answer yes to that question, why not make it a regional pool, sharing the costs as we did in the development of the Gilman sports fields? Palo Alto did just that. In 2007, Palo Alto’s warm pool received $5,274,346 from public and private partners. City taxpayers only paid $40,356. And we have invested in other regional facilities before, such as the BART and Tilden/East Bay Regional Parks.
As for the need to build a new competitive pool, one already exists at Berkeley High School, and Willard formerly served as one for middle school swimmers. In the 50’s, our Civic leaders envisioned City and School recreational facilities would be shared. In the 70’s Berkeleyans approved Measure Y, a ballot measure which reaffirmed our rights to use school recreational facilities for recreation, outside school activity times. Nationally, all other school districts let the public use their pools during non school usage. Public funding equals public use.
Why can’t the middle school competitive swimmers use the BHS pool? It’s the very pool they will use in high school, and getting used to it now will give them a competitive edge then. Additionally, the Willard pool was designed as a competitive pool.
Rehabbing Willard to once again be a competitive pool would reduce the overall cost by approximately $2,500,000.
Our financials are already stretched too thin.
Berkeley’s unemployment is at a 10 year high of 11.3%.
Berkeley municipal debt is skyrocketing--$4 million this year, $15 million next year. Council proposes to raise fees to bridge the gap.
The BUSD will be asking us to support a capital bond measure of $208--$220,000,000 and possibly a maintenance bond of about $45,000,000 this November.
This will cost approximately $130-170, per 100,000 of accessed value.
Federal, State and County governments will also be issuing new fees and taxes.
Can we afford this?
The City and BUSD need to rethink their priorities:
Maintenance for this bond has grown by 380%.
Our parks, recreation and waterfront programs are being reduced by 25% over the next two years due to staff increases, PERS obligations and loss of State funding, yet the maintenance fee on this bond represents a 38% recreational tax hike for just pools.
Our parks and recreation programs benefit everyone. Is it fair that they get a huge cut and that the pools get the lion’s share of our recreational tax dollars? The City still hasn’t acted responsible to prioritize our essential services first--services that are critically viable to our community’s very existence.
This measure needs to be re-written to better serve Berkeley’s needs.
Let’s keep Berkeley swimming with better, greener, sustainable alternatives. A legacy we can be proud of. Vote No on C.
We have less than a month to go and are down to the wire on the last, yet important aspects of the campaign. We need your help to educate our fellow voters on the many reasonable options available to support pools in Berkeley without sinking us further in debt or short changing our parks and essential services. We want recreation for all and fiscal responsibility.
Please go to berkeleycandobetter.com and volunteer/sign up to help. Financial contributions are always welcomed as campaigns are expensive. If you can make a contribution, please take a moment to do so on the site, at the Donate button, located on the home page, lower left hand side or mail a donation to: BCDB, P. O. Box 823, Berkeley, CA 94701.
Thank you in advance for helping to get the word out and to making this campaign a success.
Marie Bowman
Berkeley’s pool bond will be on the June 8th ballot. It proposes to replace the indoor warm pool at the Berkeley High School (without identifying a new location), renovate the West Campus and Willard pools, and construct a new multi-purpose (competition) pool at King, at a construction cost of $22,500,000 PLUS annual maintenance of $3,500,000 indexed to the highest rate of inflation.
Berkeley has 15 pools located at schools, universities and membership facilities, not including the boys pool at the BHS. We Berkeleyans like to swim, and we generously support our city, schools and community recreational facilities. We approved $30 million dollars in new taxes in November 2008.
We currently subsidize every warm pool swim by $20, NOT including subsidies from the BUSD and each regular swim by $10. So let’s make reasonable choices that benefit everyone, including swimmers.
It’s the new pool construction -- by far the largest share of this bond -- that doesn’t make sense. The greenest facilities are the ones already built; demolition and construction burn fossil fuels, choke landfills and waste resources. Rehabilitating all existing pools would require only 1/3 the cost of building new.
The BHS warm pool, as part of a nationally landmarked district, should be reused and not demolished. If rehab is off the table, let’s give those swimmers free passes to either the YMCA’s three pools- regular, (80-82 degrees F) warm (84-86 degrees F) and therapeutic (90-92 degrees F) or UC’s community program for the disabled--Cal Stars at the Recreation Sports Facility (RSF), which also operates a warm pool. Just like BUSD uses the YMCA warm pool for its own disabled students. Free memberships for Berkeleyans, who use the BHS warm/therapeutic pool and need a therapeutic pool would be less than 1% of the bond’s maintenance cost, let alone the enormous construction cost.
The YMCA and UC pools are available to our community, meeting the needs of nearly all warm water pool swimmers: children, adults, pregnant, obese, arthritic, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, in accordance with the Aquatic Exercise Association (AEA), the world’s largest certifying organization for aquatic fitness programming. *The AEA does not recommend the use of pools above 86 degrees except for limited functions, as there is a risk of overheating, stroke or heart attack. In fact, the AEA makes the following water temperature recommendations for these populations:
Competitive Swimming, 77-82.4 degrees F
Resistance Training, 83-86 degrees F
Therapy & Rehab 91-95 F (Aquatic Therapy & Rehab Institute/ATRI, Low function program, cooler temperatures may be more appropriate for higher intensity programs and specific populations)
Multiple Sclerosis, 80-84 degrees F
Pregnancy, 83-85 degrees F
Arthritis, 84-88 degrees F, (Arthritis Foundation)
Older Adults, 86-90 degrees F (Low function program. ATRI)
Older Adults, 83-86 degrees F, (Moderate to high intensity)
Older Adults, 86-88 degrees F, (Low intensity)
Children fitness, 83-86 degrees F
Children swim lessons--varies with age, 84-89 degrees F (when available)
Obese, 80-86 degrees F
Pools with a depth of 3-5 feet will accommodate nearly all heights of participants in a water fitness class. The AEA’s guidelines are incorporated into the City of Berkeley’s Citywide Pools Master Plan.
So who should be using a pool at 92 degrees, like the bond would replace? Very Few. And those few, can swim in the YMCA pools as they have in the past, when the BHS warm pool (more accurately, hot/therapeutic pool) has undergone repairs or during school closures or the UC warm pool.
If Berkeley needs an additional warm water pool, should it be at the proposed 2,250 square feet, a Jr. Olympic sized pool, kept at an energy-consumptive 92 degrees? If you answer yes to that question, why not make it a regional pool, sharing the costs as we did in the development of the Gilman sports fields? Palo Alto did just that. In 2007, Palo Alto’s warm pool received $5,274,346 from public and private partners. City taxpayers only paid $40,356. And we have invested in other regional facilities before, such as the BART and Tilden/East Bay Regional Parks.
As for the need to build a new competitive pool, one already exists at Berkeley High School, and Willard formerly served as one for middle school swimmers. In the 50’s, our Civic leaders envisioned City and School recreational facilities would be shared. In the 70’s Berkeleyans approved Measure Y, a ballot measure which reaffirmed our rights to use school recreational facilities for recreation, outside school activity times. Nationally, all other school districts let the public use their pools during non school usage. Public funding equals public use.
Why can’t the middle school competitive swimmers use the BHS pool? It’s the very pool they will use in high school, and getting used to it now will give them a competitive edge then. Additionally, the Willard pool was designed as a competitive pool.
Rehabbing Willard to once again be a competitive pool would reduce the overall cost by approximately $2,500,000.
Our financials are already stretched too thin.
Berkeley’s unemployment is at a 10 year high of 11.3%.
Berkeley municipal debt is skyrocketing--$4 million this year, $15 million next year. Council proposes to raise fees to bridge the gap.
The BUSD will be asking us to support a capital bond measure of $208--$220,000,000 and possibly a maintenance bond of about $45,000,000 this November.
This will cost approximately $130-170, per 100,000 of accessed value.
Federal, State and County governments will also be issuing new fees and taxes.
Can we afford this?
The City and BUSD need to rethink their priorities:
Maintenance for this bond has grown by 380%.
Our parks, recreation and waterfront programs are being reduced by 25% over the next two years due to staff increases, PERS obligations and loss of State funding, yet the maintenance fee on this bond represents a 38% recreational tax hike for just pools.
Our parks and recreation programs benefit everyone. Is it fair that they get a huge cut and that the pools get the lion’s share of our recreational tax dollars? The City still hasn’t acted responsible to prioritize our essential services first--services that are critically viable to our community’s very existence.
This measure needs to be re-written to better serve Berkeley’s needs.
Let’s keep Berkeley swimming with better, greener, sustainable alternatives. A legacy we can be proud of. Vote No on C.
We have less than a month to go and are down to the wire on the last, yet important aspects of the campaign. We need your help to educate our fellow voters on the many reasonable options available to support pools in Berkeley without sinking us further in debt or short changing our parks and essential services. We want recreation for all and fiscal responsibility.
Please go to berkeleycandobetter.com and volunteer/sign up to help. Financial contributions are always welcomed as campaigns are expensive. If you can make a contribution, please take a moment to do so on the site, at the Donate button, located on the home page, lower left hand side or mail a donation to: BCDB, P. O. Box 823, Berkeley, CA 94701.
Thank you in advance for helping to get the word out and to making this campaign a success.
Marie Bowman
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Actions Have Consequences: Ryan Lau part 2
While Berkeley City Council District 2 representative Daryl Moore says his aide, Ryan Lau, made a mistake in replacing an old funky garage with a larger living structure without obtaining permits or zoning approval, it appears the mistake is much bigger, more expensive and more problematic than simply paying a higher fee. Lau was ordered to cease construction on Monday, March 15, 2010, by Building Inspector Greg Heidenreich.
Berkeley’s building code specifically sets out ‘Development Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units’ that appear to prohibitively restrict the type of development Lau has already built. Deputy Planning Director Wendy Cosin was not optimistic that the city would be able to approve Lau’s project without a variance and in the city of Berkeley obtaining a variance is nearly impossible she acknowledged.
The first obstacle to issuing a permit is the size of Lau’s ‘Accessory Dwelling Unit. The estimated size of Lau’s nearly finished project is 432 square feet. According to the code (Section 23D.16.040), such structures are restricted to 300 square feet or less. The specific language of the code states: “No more than 25% of the gross floor area of the main dwelling in existence prior to the construction of the Accessory Dwelling Unit,” with an exemption that allows a building up to 300 square foot if the main house is smaller than 1,200 square feet. Lau’s main dwelling is less than 1,200 square feet but the building he has nearly completed is almost 44% over the upper limit.
Additionally the code specifically excludes building less than four feet from the property line. Apparently Lau has built the entire structure on the side property line
“In no case can zoning approve this if the setbacks are less than four feet,” said Deputy Director Cosin. “If he doesn’t meet the standards he’ll need a variance and it is very, very difficult to get a variance.”
Ironically, any person seeking a variance from local building codes has to get approval from the Zoning Adjustment Board. Ryan Lau is Councilman Darryl Moore’s appointee to that board.
While one local reporter stated that in attempting to resolve this issue promptly Berkeley’s Planning Department was expediting Lau’s permit, Cosin insisted that wasn’t the case.
“We’re handling this the same way we would handle any other violation,” Cosin said.
Any other treatment would be preferential and ethically improper. It is possible for Lau to pay an extra fee to expedite the permit process, which is available to any applicant, but Cosin said that Lau is “not at the building permit stage.”
As of Wednesday, March 17, 2010, Lau has not applied for zoning clearance which he must do before he can turn in a building permit application.
If Lau does not get a variance, the council-aide would have to tear the structure down, Cosin said.
While neither Lau, nor District One Councilman Darryl Moore, nor Mayor Tom Bates, nor City Manager Phil Kamlarz, nor Deputy City Manager Christine Daniel (formerly of the city attorney’s office) returned this reporter’s phone calls on Wednesday, other city staff expressed concern about the underlying issues this violation has exposed.
“I’m confused about how that can be allowed without him resigning his aide position. He’s a city employee. Seems like a conflict of interest,” said one Berkeley staffer by email. That person requested I not use their name. “In light of your discovery, it seems the only reasonable action is to remove him from ZAB (credibility shot and not fit to rule on similar situations) and he should be fired as an employee (violated the oath we take to uphold all rules and regulations).”
Another city employee, who also did not offer his name, suggested Berkeley City Auditor Ann Marie Hogan’s office should investigate Lau’s ethical lapses.
Hogan said all city staff except the mayor, council members, and their staff and appointees, are required to sign and abide by a code of ethical standards crafted by her office and the office of the City Manager that specifically requires they adhere to the laws and regulations of the city. The city manager administratively adopted that code of ethical standards for all city staff. Compliance with that code of ethics is not enforceable with the Mayor, the city council or their staff and appointees.
The mayor and council members, as elected legislative officers, do not report to the city manager’s office, nor do their aides or commission appointees, Hogan said.
“City council staff are hired and fired only by the City Council,” Hogan said. “They are ‘at-will’ employees.”
Similarly commission appointees only refer matters back to the city council, they actually don’t have any ‘authority,’ Hogan said. The mayor and city council must approve all commission actions.
“It’s never a bad idea to adopt a code of ethics,” Hogan said.
Regarding Lau’s lapses and his continued presence on the Zoning Adjustment Board, neither Cosin nor Hogan was willing to comment.
Councilwoman Linda Maio (her aide is Nicole Drake, Lau’s tenant and partner) was more forth coming.
“No,”Maio responded bluntly when asked if Lau should remain on the Zoning Adjustment Board. “I think not!”
Berkeley’s building code specifically sets out ‘Development Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units’ that appear to prohibitively restrict the type of development Lau has already built. Deputy Planning Director Wendy Cosin was not optimistic that the city would be able to approve Lau’s project without a variance and in the city of Berkeley obtaining a variance is nearly impossible she acknowledged.
The first obstacle to issuing a permit is the size of Lau’s ‘Accessory Dwelling Unit. The estimated size of Lau’s nearly finished project is 432 square feet. According to the code (Section 23D.16.040), such structures are restricted to 300 square feet or less. The specific language of the code states: “No more than 25% of the gross floor area of the main dwelling in existence prior to the construction of the Accessory Dwelling Unit,” with an exemption that allows a building up to 300 square foot if the main house is smaller than 1,200 square feet. Lau’s main dwelling is less than 1,200 square feet but the building he has nearly completed is almost 44% over the upper limit.
Additionally the code specifically excludes building less than four feet from the property line. Apparently Lau has built the entire structure on the side property line
“In no case can zoning approve this if the setbacks are less than four feet,” said Deputy Director Cosin. “If he doesn’t meet the standards he’ll need a variance and it is very, very difficult to get a variance.”
Ironically, any person seeking a variance from local building codes has to get approval from the Zoning Adjustment Board. Ryan Lau is Councilman Darryl Moore’s appointee to that board.
While one local reporter stated that in attempting to resolve this issue promptly Berkeley’s Planning Department was expediting Lau’s permit, Cosin insisted that wasn’t the case.
“We’re handling this the same way we would handle any other violation,” Cosin said.
Any other treatment would be preferential and ethically improper. It is possible for Lau to pay an extra fee to expedite the permit process, which is available to any applicant, but Cosin said that Lau is “not at the building permit stage.”
As of Wednesday, March 17, 2010, Lau has not applied for zoning clearance which he must do before he can turn in a building permit application.
If Lau does not get a variance, the council-aide would have to tear the structure down, Cosin said.
While neither Lau, nor District One Councilman Darryl Moore, nor Mayor Tom Bates, nor City Manager Phil Kamlarz, nor Deputy City Manager Christine Daniel (formerly of the city attorney’s office) returned this reporter’s phone calls on Wednesday, other city staff expressed concern about the underlying issues this violation has exposed.
“I’m confused about how that can be allowed without him resigning his aide position. He’s a city employee. Seems like a conflict of interest,” said one Berkeley staffer by email. That person requested I not use their name. “In light of your discovery, it seems the only reasonable action is to remove him from ZAB (credibility shot and not fit to rule on similar situations) and he should be fired as an employee (violated the oath we take to uphold all rules and regulations).”
Another city employee, who also did not offer his name, suggested Berkeley City Auditor Ann Marie Hogan’s office should investigate Lau’s ethical lapses.
Hogan said all city staff except the mayor, council members, and their staff and appointees, are required to sign and abide by a code of ethical standards crafted by her office and the office of the City Manager that specifically requires they adhere to the laws and regulations of the city. The city manager administratively adopted that code of ethical standards for all city staff. Compliance with that code of ethics is not enforceable with the Mayor, the city council or their staff and appointees.
The mayor and council members, as elected legislative officers, do not report to the city manager’s office, nor do their aides or commission appointees, Hogan said.
“City council staff are hired and fired only by the City Council,” Hogan said. “They are ‘at-will’ employees.”
Similarly commission appointees only refer matters back to the city council, they actually don’t have any ‘authority,’ Hogan said. The mayor and city council must approve all commission actions.
“It’s never a bad idea to adopt a code of ethics,” Hogan said.
Regarding Lau’s lapses and his continued presence on the Zoning Adjustment Board, neither Cosin nor Hogan was willing to comment.
Councilwoman Linda Maio (her aide is Nicole Drake, Lau’s tenant and partner) was more forth coming.
“No,”Maio responded bluntly when asked if Lau should remain on the Zoning Adjustment Board. “I think not!”
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Rules are for Fools: ZAB Commish Ryan Lau builds without permits
Dear Reader.
There are two types of people in Berkeley: rubes like you and me, and there are the elite. The normal rules that rubes live, bleed, and die by don’t apply to the elite. The elite needn’t follow the well-established required procedures nor abide by municipal regulations. They’re special and they know what’s best for us, and what’s best for them.
One of Berkeley’s most onerous departments of rules and regulations is its Building Department. If the average citizen rube wants to replace a water heater, stove or even a light switch, the law says he has to pull a building permit. If the rube want to repair his front porch, he has to turn in working drawings and a lot map, and pay hundreds of dollars to get said building permit. I know from personal experience.
Heaven forbid after buying your 1,145 square-foot house for $435,000 less than a year ago, as Ryan Lau did, you should want to tear down your miniscule old and decrepit garage built in the 1920s and replace it with a lovely residential structure twice as large and located far less than the required four feet from the property line. If a rube wanted to build too close to his neighbor’s property he would have to get a ‘Use Permit,’ which would likely require a public hearing and cost the rube thousands and thousands of dollars. He might even end up in front of the Zoning Adjustment Board!
Of course if the person who wants to do such a thing is named Ryan Lau, Councilman Darryl Moore’s long-time aide and appointed Commissioner to the Zoning Adjustments Board, rules mean nothing.
Zoning Adjustment Board Commissioner Ryan simply tore down (without a demolition permit) all but the front of his funky old 10x20 foot garage and replaced it on the property line with an elegant residential-style structure more than twice as large (roughly 12x36 feet). Mr Lau left one wall of the teetering temporary front façade of the old garage still standing precariously, the better to hide the massive construction project in-process behind it. The new building is lovely and substantial: taller, wider, nearly twice as long. It offers the proud owner lovely wide windows and double French doors in front, and what looks like a bathroom, rear entrance and bedroom in the back.
Mr Lau, the well-paid Aide to Councilman Darryl Moore from District 2, didn’t apply for a use permit for such a magnificent project according to Aaron Sage, Senior Planner at City of Berkeley. Mr Sage was manning the Zoning Department desk when I submitted my request for information. After researching the issue Mr Sage looked quite uncomfortable saying that no Use Permit, nor any other zoning permit had been issued.
It seems Mr Lau didn’t bother to apply for a building permit either according to two different Building Department employees who researched the question for me when I submitted my official written request at the building department’s information counter. Normally a building permit would require zoning approval, site plans, building plans, neighborhood meetings, and probably a zoning adjustment hearing (in front of Mr Lau and/or his friends on the board)!
When I went to Mr Lau’s house to speak with the owner and see and photograph this extravagant violation of the city’s building and zoning codes, a woman, who I assumed was Nicole Drake, Mr Lau’s significant other, came out of the house and screamed threats at me repeatedly and claimed she called the police. Unfortunately she refused to identify herself or to speak to me about the construction project. There was no work-card/permit posted anywhere in sight, as is required by regulation. Ironically enough Ms Drake is also employed by the city of Berkeley. She is District 1 Councilwoman Linda Maio’s well-paid Aide.
Like many in Berkeley, over the years I have become more than a little familiar with the workings of code enforcement. I have been red-tagged (an immediate work-stop-order) by the city numerous times, typically for doing minor repairs to my home, and once for work I wasn’t doing!
My son, Asa Dodsworth, has had Gregory Daniel, Berkeley’s chief code enforcer, and Maurice Norrise, Mr Daniel’s subordinate, at his home so frequently he wonders whether he could legally charge them rent. Through much effort Asa has managed to get the city to reduce the fines imposed against him for planting vegetables in his median strip and similar such extravagances reduced to only several thousand dollars from a much, much higher figure, but the city continues to bagger and harass him relentlessly.
Many years ago Berkeley’s building department cited me personally for most of the entire Uniform Building Code (according to Court Commissioner Jon Rantzman). All for naught, Commissioner Rantzman dismissed every citation. When this mayor’s wife was our mayor, I was again cited for new laws they were making up almost as quickly as they were writing the citations. Again for naught, the city promptly rewrote its new laws several times before deleting them entirely.
I attempted to contact Mayor Tom Bates regarding Mr Lau’s violations, especially in light of his position as a city council aide and a zoning adjustment board commission member. One of the Mayor’s Aides spoke with me, and then with the mayor, and then came back and took my phone number. I heard nothing more. I also attempted to speak with both Councilman Moore and Councilwoman Maio regarding their Aides’ involvement in this violation of the public trust. Neither called me back but I wasn’t surprised. The voice on Ms Maio’s telephone answering machine seemed to belong to Ms Drake.
I also spoke with Gregory Daniel of Code Enforcement. He insured me he would treat this matter with the same professionalism he gave to every other code violation in Berkeley. Mr Norrise said ‘Hi.’
It’s a real shame I’m not an important person in Berkeley. If I was important I’m sure the city would treat me and my son as cavalierly as the city treats Zoning Adjustment Board Commissioner Lau. It would be fun to just do whatever I liked without regard to the laws and regulations of our community. Much more likely because of this little report I expect someone from the city will soon be knocking on my door or my son’s door looking for forbidden flowers and vegetables or evidence of new paint and repairs. Berkeley’s that kind of place.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Berkeley Downtown Plan
The Berkeley Downtown Plan — the City Council/Planning Commission sell-out of Berkeley’s downtown — has been temporarily delayed, not stopped. While a direct vote on the plan would probably fail, a negotiated settlement between Mayor Tom Bates and the referendum organizers Patti Dacy and Jesse Arreguín could lead to badly compromised plan that improves a few inconsequential social amenities in exchange for giving developers carté blanche to build numerous enormous buildings, some likely to be over 20 stories tall. Alternatively the city come back with a substantially revised, but not necessarily improved, plan. I think it’s way past time to ask why are we here?
Is it to cure our downtown’s ills?
If we're trying to cure downtown’s ills is the reasonable prescription injecting a dozen or more 20 story buildings into the mix in hopes of bringing vitality back by the sheer number of bodies? OR is our downtown ill because the rents are just too high for anything but women’s clothing shops and fast food restaurants? At $3.50 a square foot, most of the retail shops that would bring vitality to the downtown can’t survive. Yet $3.50 a square foot is what Berkeley’s most visible retail Realtor/Developer, John Gordon, is telling landlords their property is worth. And yet there’s vacant retail property everywhere you look.
The 20,000 sq ft Tower Records Store on Durant off Telegraph has been vacant for almost ten years!
Radston’s Office Supply was driven out by increased rents after more than 60 years in Berkeley. We lost as much as $400,000 a year in sales tax from Radstons, and a dozen jobs, yet the building hasn’t been rented in two years.
Black Oak Books was paying $17,000 a month in rent to one of Berkeley biggest landlords (who also owns the Tower Records building on Durant) and now that space which was once a beacon is now a blight in my neighborhood, collecting graffiti and housing the homeless in it’s protected doorway.
Or maybe we’re trying to appease the University.
I ran into Mark McLeod on Shattuck Ave. last week. Mark used to own the now-closed restaurant that went by the name of Downtown. I’ve been told he lives in the city of San Pablo but he’s still president of the Downtown Business Improvement District board and he’s still a big proponent of more development in Berkeley’s downtown. As we walked down Shattuck, McLeod told me with a straight face that if we didn’t give the University what it wanted –a million square feet of development rights in our downtown – the University might pull up stakes and leave the city of Berkeley. PLEEEEEEEASE.
Just another developer/property-owner give-away.
I think we’re actually trying to appease property owners and developers and their enablers on the city payroll who would like to see those privately held lands hit the all-time jackpot, a once in a lifetime-payday as they turn our low-rise, people-friendly landscape into canyons of steel (allegedly ‘green’ steel, but theft none the less).
When I first came to California, in the very early 70s, there was a citizen’s effort to control high-rise development in San Francisco. The catch phrase was ‘Stop the Manhattanization of San Francisco.’ At that time the TransAmerica Pyramid was a skyline icon you could see for miles, from everywhere. Those people failed and today, you can barely see the once enormous, once iconic pyramid building now buried underneath San Francisco’s newer bigger, taller, less-human skyscape. This is where Berkeley’s headed if we don’t stand firm for the values that make Berkeley a beautiful, world-class town, a place you want to live.
Do you know WHAT is the most profitable crop in California? It’s not marijuana. It’s not strawberries. It’s not fancy arugula for restaurants like Chez Panisse. The most valuable crop in California, or any other place, is enormous buildings. I didn’t make that up, that’s a quote from Gray Brechin’s book Imperial San Francisco — like Jane Jacob’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities — it’s a highly recommended read on urbanization.
I’ve spent nearly 30 years tracking development in the Bay Area. Trust me, if we allow one landowner, one developer to build a 20 story building on their property in the city of Berkeley, every landowner downtown will want the enormous monetary sums they can get for a building site that allows buildings 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 stories tall. The nature of development is to ask for more. If we give them 20 stories, they’ll want 30. If we give 30, they’ll ask for 40. The scales of economies will force them to ask for more. That’s why I say we have to Downzone the Whole Damn Downtown to four stories. That won’t stop developers from building 5 or 6 or even 8 story buildings, but it will slow them down and it will give us some control over our environment.
Plain and simple lies.
I’m not going to call anyone a liar, but it’s reasonable to challenge a lie.
If the University doesn’t get carte blanche to build a million square feet of in our downtown, Cal isn’t going to pull up roots and roll down the road to Fremont. Remember, it’s not just in the downtown that Cal is expanding. Cal has an on-campus building program scheduled to add nearly a million square feet the next ten years. And that’s not all. The National Laboratory — which has already added hundreds of thousands of square feet to their facilities in the recent past – also plans to add about a million square feet of development in the next ten years. Between just those two programs that’s another 6,000 cars minimum, parking, speeding, in a hurry to get through your neighborhoods because they’re late for work, late for picking up the kids, late for a very important date. Like it? If we shoehorn more oversized office buildings into our downtown and that’s what you in the surrounding neighborhoods like this one are going to see.
We’re also been told by ABAG (the Association of Bay Area Governments) that we have a moral obligation to add housing in Berkeley to absorb California’s ever-increasing population.
Of course, Albany, Walnut Creek, Palo Alto and many of the other surrounding communities ignore ABAG. Of course the affordable housing we’ve added is anything but affordable. But ABAG threatens to restrict some federal funding options if Berkeley does not add approximately 387 new units of housing PER YEAR!!!!! Put in perspective, the enormous oversized, inappropriate, sore-thumb in our downtown known as the Gaia Building has only 91 apartments. ABAG is saying that we need to add MORE THAN FOUR Gaia Buildings a year –each year -- for the indefinite future! And that would still be 23 units short of ABAG's mandated ANNUAL minimum! There’s another thousand new bodies every year and an approximate equal number of vehicles. Like that picture?
Please note that at this time, California is actually losing population because there aren’t enough decent paying jobs in California and living expenses are just too high. In other words ABAG’s rationale for insisting on more housing has disappeared but it’s mandate hasn’t.
While we’re talking about resources we need to acknowledge that most of California is basically an arid desert. Look at pictures of Berkeley before the Great Earthquake and you’ll see scrub brush and grasslands because that’s all that could naturally grow here. We’re using far more water in California, than we have. Our current 37 million population is drinking and flushing the toilet because we’re stealing water from neighboring states and Mexico and from the Native People of California who have rights to water by treaty that we have ignored to this point in time. That party is over. Recent Congressional and judicial actions have affirmed those Native rights and the cost of flushing your toilet, the cost of boiling your tea, is going to skyrocket just like the cost of gasoline and power have because there isn’t enough water for the people who are here now, let alone millions more who are allegedly coming in the future.
Don’t get me started on how we’re going to take care of those additional people in our already over crowded schools and hospitals, with our over extended fire and police and social services. AND DON’T tell how the new development is going to pay for these necessary service increases because every case study I’m aware of says the exact opposite.
Threatening our way of life
The political and financial pressures being brought to bear on our community are powerful, well-connected, well-financed, relentless, and ruthless. If we don’t say NO to the Manhattanization of Berkeley, if we allow our city council to give away that which makes this a wonderful place to raise children and grow old, we will have given away the best of Berkeley for nothing. Somewhere in Berkeley at some point in the near future, the people of this wonderful community are going to draw a line in the sand and say that enough is enough, that we’re not willing to surrender the quality of life we love for some developer’s second or third home. The town we love is under attack and it will not survive in anything like it’s current form if we don’t defend it. It’s time for the citizens of Berkeley to talk to their neighbors about more traffic, more speeding cars, more people, and more giant ugly buildings. Write letters and make phone calls: Tell your council member to Downzone the whole damn Downtown. Let San Franciso or Oakland be Manhattan. Let Berkeley be Paris.
Is it to cure our downtown’s ills?
If we're trying to cure downtown’s ills is the reasonable prescription injecting a dozen or more 20 story buildings into the mix in hopes of bringing vitality back by the sheer number of bodies? OR is our downtown ill because the rents are just too high for anything but women’s clothing shops and fast food restaurants? At $3.50 a square foot, most of the retail shops that would bring vitality to the downtown can’t survive. Yet $3.50 a square foot is what Berkeley’s most visible retail Realtor/Developer, John Gordon, is telling landlords their property is worth. And yet there’s vacant retail property everywhere you look.
The 20,000 sq ft Tower Records Store on Durant off Telegraph has been vacant for almost ten years!
Radston’s Office Supply was driven out by increased rents after more than 60 years in Berkeley. We lost as much as $400,000 a year in sales tax from Radstons, and a dozen jobs, yet the building hasn’t been rented in two years.
Black Oak Books was paying $17,000 a month in rent to one of Berkeley biggest landlords (who also owns the Tower Records building on Durant) and now that space which was once a beacon is now a blight in my neighborhood, collecting graffiti and housing the homeless in it’s protected doorway.
Or maybe we’re trying to appease the University.
I ran into Mark McLeod on Shattuck Ave. last week. Mark used to own the now-closed restaurant that went by the name of Downtown. I’ve been told he lives in the city of San Pablo but he’s still president of the Downtown Business Improvement District board and he’s still a big proponent of more development in Berkeley’s downtown. As we walked down Shattuck, McLeod told me with a straight face that if we didn’t give the University what it wanted –a million square feet of development rights in our downtown – the University might pull up stakes and leave the city of Berkeley. PLEEEEEEEASE.
Just another developer/property-owner give-away.
I think we’re actually trying to appease property owners and developers and their enablers on the city payroll who would like to see those privately held lands hit the all-time jackpot, a once in a lifetime-payday as they turn our low-rise, people-friendly landscape into canyons of steel (allegedly ‘green’ steel, but theft none the less).
When I first came to California, in the very early 70s, there was a citizen’s effort to control high-rise development in San Francisco. The catch phrase was ‘Stop the Manhattanization of San Francisco.’ At that time the TransAmerica Pyramid was a skyline icon you could see for miles, from everywhere. Those people failed and today, you can barely see the once enormous, once iconic pyramid building now buried underneath San Francisco’s newer bigger, taller, less-human skyscape. This is where Berkeley’s headed if we don’t stand firm for the values that make Berkeley a beautiful, world-class town, a place you want to live.
Do you know WHAT is the most profitable crop in California? It’s not marijuana. It’s not strawberries. It’s not fancy arugula for restaurants like Chez Panisse. The most valuable crop in California, or any other place, is enormous buildings. I didn’t make that up, that’s a quote from Gray Brechin’s book Imperial San Francisco — like Jane Jacob’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities — it’s a highly recommended read on urbanization.
I’ve spent nearly 30 years tracking development in the Bay Area. Trust me, if we allow one landowner, one developer to build a 20 story building on their property in the city of Berkeley, every landowner downtown will want the enormous monetary sums they can get for a building site that allows buildings 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 stories tall. The nature of development is to ask for more. If we give them 20 stories, they’ll want 30. If we give 30, they’ll ask for 40. The scales of economies will force them to ask for more. That’s why I say we have to Downzone the Whole Damn Downtown to four stories. That won’t stop developers from building 5 or 6 or even 8 story buildings, but it will slow them down and it will give us some control over our environment.
Plain and simple lies.
I’m not going to call anyone a liar, but it’s reasonable to challenge a lie.
If the University doesn’t get carte blanche to build a million square feet of in our downtown, Cal isn’t going to pull up roots and roll down the road to Fremont. Remember, it’s not just in the downtown that Cal is expanding. Cal has an on-campus building program scheduled to add nearly a million square feet the next ten years. And that’s not all. The National Laboratory — which has already added hundreds of thousands of square feet to their facilities in the recent past – also plans to add about a million square feet of development in the next ten years. Between just those two programs that’s another 6,000 cars minimum, parking, speeding, in a hurry to get through your neighborhoods because they’re late for work, late for picking up the kids, late for a very important date. Like it? If we shoehorn more oversized office buildings into our downtown and that’s what you in the surrounding neighborhoods like this one are going to see.
We’re also been told by ABAG (the Association of Bay Area Governments) that we have a moral obligation to add housing in Berkeley to absorb California’s ever-increasing population.
Of course, Albany, Walnut Creek, Palo Alto and many of the other surrounding communities ignore ABAG. Of course the affordable housing we’ve added is anything but affordable. But ABAG threatens to restrict some federal funding options if Berkeley does not add approximately 387 new units of housing PER YEAR!!!!! Put in perspective, the enormous oversized, inappropriate, sore-thumb in our downtown known as the Gaia Building has only 91 apartments. ABAG is saying that we need to add MORE THAN FOUR Gaia Buildings a year –each year -- for the indefinite future! And that would still be 23 units short of ABAG's mandated ANNUAL minimum! There’s another thousand new bodies every year and an approximate equal number of vehicles. Like that picture?
Please note that at this time, California is actually losing population because there aren’t enough decent paying jobs in California and living expenses are just too high. In other words ABAG’s rationale for insisting on more housing has disappeared but it’s mandate hasn’t.
While we’re talking about resources we need to acknowledge that most of California is basically an arid desert. Look at pictures of Berkeley before the Great Earthquake and you’ll see scrub brush and grasslands because that’s all that could naturally grow here. We’re using far more water in California, than we have. Our current 37 million population is drinking and flushing the toilet because we’re stealing water from neighboring states and Mexico and from the Native People of California who have rights to water by treaty that we have ignored to this point in time. That party is over. Recent Congressional and judicial actions have affirmed those Native rights and the cost of flushing your toilet, the cost of boiling your tea, is going to skyrocket just like the cost of gasoline and power have because there isn’t enough water for the people who are here now, let alone millions more who are allegedly coming in the future.
Don’t get me started on how we’re going to take care of those additional people in our already over crowded schools and hospitals, with our over extended fire and police and social services. AND DON’T tell how the new development is going to pay for these necessary service increases because every case study I’m aware of says the exact opposite.
Threatening our way of life
The political and financial pressures being brought to bear on our community are powerful, well-connected, well-financed, relentless, and ruthless. If we don’t say NO to the Manhattanization of Berkeley, if we allow our city council to give away that which makes this a wonderful place to raise children and grow old, we will have given away the best of Berkeley for nothing. Somewhere in Berkeley at some point in the near future, the people of this wonderful community are going to draw a line in the sand and say that enough is enough, that we’re not willing to surrender the quality of life we love for some developer’s second or third home. The town we love is under attack and it will not survive in anything like it’s current form if we don’t defend it. It’s time for the citizens of Berkeley to talk to their neighbors about more traffic, more speeding cars, more people, and more giant ugly buildings. Write letters and make phone calls: Tell your council member to Downzone the whole damn Downtown. Let San Franciso or Oakland be Manhattan. Let Berkeley be Paris.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Berkeley Bureacrats Bully Frontyard Gardeners
Fellow Neighbors, Friends, and travelers,
The City of Berkeley Code enforcement has decided my front yard fruit trees and garden beds are an "unpermitted violation" and must be removed. They have fined me $4,500- already and threatened daily additional fines of the same. That's $135,000 per month!
In conversation they tell me that I'm supposed to have a lawn just like all the other houses, they say that the front yards is for recreation. But they don't put those crazy statements on paper, on paper they write citations for
* vegetation over six foot tall, a five hundred dollar a day fine, now cited twice in a two week period
* Unpermitted Trees, a five hundred dollar a day fine, cited twice
* Unpermitted Garden Beds, a five hundred dollar a day fine, cited twice
* two counts of obstruction of the right of way, at five hundred dollar a day each.
* And a we already told you so citation, a five hundred dollar a day fine
* and to further damage me, they mailed copies of this mayhem to my Bank
In recent walking surveys of our Berkeley yardscape: 25% of Berkeley Properties have a fruit tree in the right of way, 80% have vegetation obstructing the sidewalk, or egress for cars, and 90% have vegetation over 6ft tall. These numbers establish a clear community standard of appreciation and support of front yard gardens. And that community standard is defensible position in a court of law.
And I will fight these citations all the way, Code enforcement Officers Maurice Norrise and Gregory Daniels have selectively enforced these laws, as a tool of harassment, against myself and every community garden, and activist household I know of in Berkeley. Its time to turn this tide. Its time for an investigation into the questionable practices of Berkeley's code enforcement department.
Step in for a fellow neighbor, and Stand up for your right to plant you own Victory Garden, for your right to choose the trees that you are responsible for pruning and sweeping up after.
Don't let them take away this valuable tool in the fight against global warming.
We need you to call these important local decision makers and tell them how you feel, call and leave a message now
Deputy City Manager Lisa Caronna, (510) 981-7600
Neighborhood Services Officer Angela Gallegos-Castillo (510)981-2491
City Manager Phil Kamlarz (510)981-7000
And to email your local advocates and secure their support
"Mayor Tom Bates",
Council Members, choose the one for you district
"Jesse Arreguin L.",
"Darryl Moore",
"Susan Wengraf",
"Laurie Capitelli",
"Linda Maio",
"Max Anderson",
"Worthington, Kriss",
"Gordon Wozniak",
Talking Points
* We need urban gardens to reduce our Ecological Impact, to Preserve Wilderness from cultivation, decrease our dependency on foreign oil, and reduce our carbon footprint,
* Asa's Garden Beds and Fruit Trees
* All the fruit trees are carefully maintained, sidewalks swept, and branches pruned off the sidewalks and to 18 inches from the curb face.
* The street side garden beds are separated with walkways every car length to allow for easy street side access, unlike most juniper hedges in Berkeley
* Berkeley Approved Measure G, to curb greenhouse gasses.
* The Obama's have a frontyard garden at the White House
and SF Mayor Gavin Newsom has one in front of city hall
Why doesn't The City Berkeley have one???
if you wanna see pictures of the Garden, visit www.berkeleyvictorygardens.tk
If you want to help us organize events,email fruit-jam-renegades@googlegroups.com
if you want to stay in touch, or come to a garden building party,
check out http://groups.google.com/group/food-not-lawns-eastbay-events
Sincerely,
Asa Dodsworth,
moped45@gmail.com
oh, and don't forget to forward this message to your friends
The City of Berkeley Code enforcement has decided my front yard fruit trees and garden beds are an "unpermitted violation" and must be removed. They have fined me $4,500- already and threatened daily additional fines of the same. That's $135,000 per month!
In conversation they tell me that I'm supposed to have a lawn just like all the other houses, they say that the front yards is for recreation. But they don't put those crazy statements on paper, on paper they write citations for
* vegetation over six foot tall, a five hundred dollar a day fine, now cited twice in a two week period
* Unpermitted Trees, a five hundred dollar a day fine, cited twice
* Unpermitted Garden Beds, a five hundred dollar a day fine, cited twice
* two counts of obstruction of the right of way, at five hundred dollar a day each.
* And a we already told you so citation, a five hundred dollar a day fine
* and to further damage me, they mailed copies of this mayhem to my Bank
In recent walking surveys of our Berkeley yardscape: 25% of Berkeley Properties have a fruit tree in the right of way, 80% have vegetation obstructing the sidewalk, or egress for cars, and 90% have vegetation over 6ft tall. These numbers establish a clear community standard of appreciation and support of front yard gardens. And that community standard is defensible position in a court of law.
And I will fight these citations all the way, Code enforcement Officers Maurice Norrise and Gregory Daniels have selectively enforced these laws, as a tool of harassment, against myself and every community garden, and activist household I know of in Berkeley. Its time to turn this tide. Its time for an investigation into the questionable practices of Berkeley's code enforcement department.
Step in for a fellow neighbor, and Stand up for your right to plant you own Victory Garden, for your right to choose the trees that you are responsible for pruning and sweeping up after.
Don't let them take away this valuable tool in the fight against global warming.
We need you to call these important local decision makers and tell them how you feel, call and leave a message now
Deputy City Manager Lisa Caronna, (510) 981-7600
Neighborhood Services Officer Angela Gallegos-Castillo (510)981-2491
City Manager Phil Kamlarz (510)981-7000
And to email your local advocates and secure their support
"Mayor Tom Bates"
Council Members, choose the one for you district
"Jesse Arreguin L."
"Darryl Moore"
"Susan Wengraf"
"Laurie Capitelli"
"Linda Maio"
"Max Anderson"
"Worthington, Kriss"
"Gordon Wozniak"
Talking Points
* We need urban gardens to reduce our Ecological Impact, to Preserve Wilderness from cultivation, decrease our dependency on foreign oil, and reduce our carbon footprint,
* Asa's Garden Beds and Fruit Trees
* All the fruit trees are carefully maintained, sidewalks swept, and branches pruned off the sidewalks and to 18 inches from the curb face.
* The street side garden beds are separated with walkways every car length to allow for easy street side access, unlike most juniper hedges in Berkeley
* Berkeley Approved Measure G, to curb greenhouse gasses.
* The Obama's have a frontyard garden at the White House
and SF Mayor Gavin Newsom has one in front of city hall
Why doesn't The City Berkeley have one???
if you wanna see pictures of the Garden, visit www.berkeleyvictorygardens.tk
If you want to help us organize events,email fruit-jam-renegades@googlegroups.com
if you want to stay in touch, or come to a garden building party,
check out http://groups.google.com/group/food-not-lawns-eastbay-events
Sincerely,
Asa Dodsworth,
moped45@gmail.com
oh, and don't forget to forward this message to your friends
Monday, December 15, 2008
Blight in Berkeley
One of the unacknowledged sources of blight and despair in any community (quickly becoming epidemic in Berkeley) is the blight of empty storefronts all over the city's commercial districts.
For every thousand square feet of unoccupied industrial/commercial/retail space, three persons are not employed!
Increased vandalism, crime, homelessness and environmental degradation are a direct result.
Empty storefronts are a response to the obscenely high, unaffordable rents currently being charged by too many of Berkeley's too few landlords.
It's time for Berkeley to start billing the landlords (many of who have monopolized too many buildings) for the additional municipal costs and for the additional substantial social burdens vacant properties inflict on our communities.
The fees (not taxes but direct user fees) should be both substantial and punitive.
When it's too expensive to keep these properties vacant, rents will drop to reflect their actual value, rather than monopolized, values.
Call you representatives today and demand that the city charge landlords and property owners for these social costs.
To join in a discussion of blight in our community check out the blog http://wefightblight.blogspot.com/
For every thousand square feet of unoccupied industrial/commercial/retail space, three persons are not employed!
Increased vandalism, crime, homelessness and environmental degradation are a direct result.
Empty storefronts are a response to the obscenely high, unaffordable rents currently being charged by too many of Berkeley's too few landlords.
It's time for Berkeley to start billing the landlords (many of who have monopolized too many buildings) for the additional municipal costs and for the additional substantial social burdens vacant properties inflict on our communities.
The fees (not taxes but direct user fees) should be both substantial and punitive.
When it's too expensive to keep these properties vacant, rents will drop to reflect their actual value, rather than monopolized, values.
Call you representatives today and demand that the city charge landlords and property owners for these social costs.
To join in a discussion of blight in our community check out the blog http://wefightblight.blogspot.com/
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Safeway has plans, many plans.....
Picturing the future on Solano Avenue.
Safeway sees leased retail along Solano Avenue, in addition to its own much larger, two-story store covering the entire lot, with an entrance at Curtis Street and Solano Avenue.
Safeway isn't just working on doubling the size of its story on North Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley, they want to substantially increase the size of all their stores in our community.
The locally-based mega-Corporation has plans for a 58,000 square foot project, which will include almost 10,000 square feet of for-lease retail space along Solano Avenue.
This proposed project will entirely encompass the corporation's Albany property from Curtis to Neilson streets, with parking entrances on those two residential streets rather than reducing the company's valuable for-lease real estate along Solano Avenue.
There are also plans in development for its store on College Avenue in North Oakland.
If you're interested in hearing what this grocery chain has in store for us in Albany, there's information available at: http://www.safewayonsolano.com/
A community "Albany Planning & Zoning Study Session" is scheduled for next week, June 24, 2008 at 7:30 pm at the Albany Community Center, 1249 Marin Ave., Albany CA
For more information, call Barbara Ellis at (510) 849-4811
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Safeway's latest proposal for North Shattuck
There will be a community forum to view Safeway's proposed plans to rebuild their store on Shattuck Avenue held on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 from 6:30 to 8:00 pm at the Hillside Club, 2286 Cedar St, in North Berkeley.
Come view the plans and renderings and share your comments.
You may view the plans before the meeting by going to
www.safewayonshattuck.com
For more information call or email
Elisabeth Jewel
(510) 849-4811
elisabeth@ajepartners.com
Aroner, Jewel and Ellis Partners
a public relations and political lobbying firm.
From the Safeway website:
Dear Berkeley Safeway Neighbors:
Our team is excited and pleased to finally post to this website the proposed plans for redeveloping your Safeway at 1444 Shattuck Avenue. Over the last year, our team of architects, consultants and store designers worked diligently to incorporate your ideas and suggestions into a plan for a new exciting, upscale, and more dynamic shopping experience for you, your family, and the community.
We believe you will find that the proposed design complements the style and scale of the neighborhood and unique urban setting. We strived to be mindful of enlivening and enhancing the area with outdoor seating, retail shops, and walkable sidewalks to promote increased pedestrian activity and community pride. The unique design includes multiple retail spaces on the street level to enhance the flow and energy of the area and encourage shoppers to visit the store via foot or bike. The proposed Safeway, occupying the second floor, overlooks the street with lots of glass to maintain a visual connection between customer activity inside and the pedestrian enhanced activity outside. Parking has been designed to be mostly hidden from pedestrian view. The interior parking will provide safe, light–filled, and easily accessible parking.
The store design accommodates a roomy, comfortable layout, with a world class produce, bakery, service deli, meat, and seafood, pharmacy and many other goods and services not possible in the current configuration. Delivery trucks will be screened behind roll up doors, mechanical equipment will be moved away from residences, and outside recycling removed.
This is just the beginning! There will be many more meetings and opportunity for community input as the plan evolves and is eventually submitted to the city. We continue to welcome your comments and suggestions. We would be honored if you would utilize this website to provide your thoughts and look forward seeing you at the upcoming community meeting.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
I have seen the future and...
After consulting the Oracle, I have seen the future and it holds a tarot card reader (with table and two chairs) in the 'North Shattuck Plaza' (or at least that little little newspaper peninsula in front of Coldwell Banker's office.
One Mark Browning (a south Berkeley resident) was issued a permit from the city on May 7th to set up shop as North Berkeley's officially sanctioned soothsayer.
Do tell.
Hopefully he'll wear a colorful costume to go with his colorful cards.
One Mark Browning (a south Berkeley resident) was issued a permit from the city on May 7th to set up shop as North Berkeley's officially sanctioned soothsayer.
Do tell.
Hopefully he'll wear a colorful costume to go with his colorful cards.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Regarding North Shattuck Plaza
A Response to Laurie Capitelli
and his commentary in the Berkeley Daily Planet, April 18-21, 2008.
by Linda Trujillo Bargmeyer
Laurie Capitelli begins his commentary standing at Vine looking south “down a vibrant Shattuck Avenue thronging with pedestrians…spilling out across traffic to claim and use the grass median strip.” What he does not say, is that this thronging mass of pedestrians does not continue down Shattuck Avenue or continue into the real downtown of Berkeley.
When I disembark at the downtown Bart station and walk home via Shattuck Avenue to North Berkeley I see a more complete picture. Getting off the train, it is hard not to notice that downtown is shabby and worn and needs to be revitalized. The buildings that have recently been built downtown lack inspiration and have done little to reinvigorate the area with the positive energy we would like in a city center. As I cross University Avenue and walk north, I notice that blocks of new five- story buildings, painted artificially Tuscan to cover their inherent blandness and lack of character, stand like cloned soldiers on the east side of Shattuck Avenue. Apartments are apparently on the top floors of the buildings and offices on the ground floor. Many of these ground floor offices are empty or perhaps not even completed. There are few people walking the sidewalks in this area. As I cross Delaware, I walk into what I call my neighborhood. The one or two story buildings are more human scale, the architecture more interesting, and the area more friendly with people busily walking the streets. The shops and restaurants are busy because they are local businesses in tune with the local populace. I feel lucky to call this part of Berkeley my home.
It is predominately an area of owner -occupied homes. The area is dotted with parks to provide tranquility in an urban environment. There are walking paths that crisscross the area leading to other commercial areas or to other neighborhoods within the area. I like the sense of place, the personality and the community I have found in this part of Berkeley. I like the quality of life that the local, the small, and the individualistic produce. Apparently, others feel the same way, because even though there are some things that can be improved, the North Berkeley area essentially works.
Before any improvements in this area are planned, it would be wise to ponder what makes the “gourmet ghetto” one of the most vital parts of Berkeley, for it is very easy to kill what we love in North Berkeley. The Vision Committee, a subgroup of LOCCNA, set upon this task when we wrote our Vision Statement in response to David Stoloff’s plan. Although there was some disagreement within LOCCNA (as stated in the Fred Dodsworth article), we united around the concepts behind the Vision Statement. It was endorsed at a well attended meeting of LOCCNA members and it was endorsed by the Northside Neighborhood Association. It would be well for Laurie Capitelli to respond to the issues contained within that document and answer truthfully the fear of many North Berkeley residents: Is this movement to enhance North Berkeley with green and pedestrian space only a ruse or a prelude to building the dead architecture and high rise apartments that are now creeping up Shattuck Avenue? I question the sincerity of Capitelli’s statement that we should work together with a “shared commitment to bring improvement to our neighborhood.” When I am on Vine looking south on Shattuck, I like what I see up to Delaware, but looking further south on Shattuck I dread what might be coming north.
and his commentary in the Berkeley Daily Planet, April 18-21, 2008.
by Linda Trujillo Bargmeyer
Laurie Capitelli begins his commentary standing at Vine looking south “down a vibrant Shattuck Avenue thronging with pedestrians…spilling out across traffic to claim and use the grass median strip.” What he does not say, is that this thronging mass of pedestrians does not continue down Shattuck Avenue or continue into the real downtown of Berkeley.
When I disembark at the downtown Bart station and walk home via Shattuck Avenue to North Berkeley I see a more complete picture. Getting off the train, it is hard not to notice that downtown is shabby and worn and needs to be revitalized. The buildings that have recently been built downtown lack inspiration and have done little to reinvigorate the area with the positive energy we would like in a city center. As I cross University Avenue and walk north, I notice that blocks of new five- story buildings, painted artificially Tuscan to cover their inherent blandness and lack of character, stand like cloned soldiers on the east side of Shattuck Avenue. Apartments are apparently on the top floors of the buildings and offices on the ground floor. Many of these ground floor offices are empty or perhaps not even completed. There are few people walking the sidewalks in this area. As I cross Delaware, I walk into what I call my neighborhood. The one or two story buildings are more human scale, the architecture more interesting, and the area more friendly with people busily walking the streets. The shops and restaurants are busy because they are local businesses in tune with the local populace. I feel lucky to call this part of Berkeley my home.
It is predominately an area of owner -occupied homes. The area is dotted with parks to provide tranquility in an urban environment. There are walking paths that crisscross the area leading to other commercial areas or to other neighborhoods within the area. I like the sense of place, the personality and the community I have found in this part of Berkeley. I like the quality of life that the local, the small, and the individualistic produce. Apparently, others feel the same way, because even though there are some things that can be improved, the North Berkeley area essentially works.
Before any improvements in this area are planned, it would be wise to ponder what makes the “gourmet ghetto” one of the most vital parts of Berkeley, for it is very easy to kill what we love in North Berkeley. The Vision Committee, a subgroup of LOCCNA, set upon this task when we wrote our Vision Statement in response to David Stoloff’s plan. Although there was some disagreement within LOCCNA (as stated in the Fred Dodsworth article), we united around the concepts behind the Vision Statement. It was endorsed at a well attended meeting of LOCCNA members and it was endorsed by the Northside Neighborhood Association. It would be well for Laurie Capitelli to respond to the issues contained within that document and answer truthfully the fear of many North Berkeley residents: Is this movement to enhance North Berkeley with green and pedestrian space only a ruse or a prelude to building the dead architecture and high rise apartments that are now creeping up Shattuck Avenue? I question the sincerity of Capitelli’s statement that we should work together with a “shared commitment to bring improvement to our neighborhood.” When I am on Vine looking south on Shattuck, I like what I see up to Delaware, but looking further south on Shattuck I dread what might be coming north.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Long past time for improvements in the North Shattuck Commercial District
Northside neighbors,
It is past time for the city of Berkeley to complete its long-delayed civic improvements in the North Shattuck commercial district. Approximately eight years ago, after intensive community involvement, a program of modest, incremental, civic improvements was created and approved by the community and the city council. That program became stalled when Planning Commission member David Stoloff initiated his 'grand' North Shattuck Plaza plan. Mr. Stoloff's scheme is dead, but the problems remain. Among those is the necessary redesign of the intersection at Shattuck Avenue and Vine Street.
The current design of that intersection is murderously and poorly conceived. The city has planned pedestrian bulb-outs there, which will make walking across that intersection much safer. In the last 20 plus years, that intersection has been the site of least two pedestrian deaths. My youngest son saw one of those accidents, where a young pregnant woman was torn in half. There have been many more less horrific accidents, and many more near misses.
While it's just a hop across the crosswalk for the young and agile, for those moving more slowly it is a journey too dangerous and too far, with too many distracted motorists gunning desperately for that 'last' parking space. Like many elderly in our neighborhood, my 82-year-old mother-in-law refuses to attempt to cross Shattuck Avenue at Vine Street if she can't begin her journey immediately upon the light turning green. She’s not alone. I see elderly pedestrians standing out in traffic regularly at that intersection.
Complicating the problems is that Safeway has announced it plans to double its size in North Berkeley. Less than a block away, this will dramatically and dangerously increase both pedestrian and automotive traffic at the intersection of Vine and Shattuck.
Again returning to the plan already designed and approved eight years ago, the barren, useless and underutilized concrete peninsula in front of Coldwell Banker's realty firm is too small to be effectively re-purposed and too large to be wasted as no more than a plinth for newspaper stands. That wasteland is a perfect place to transition from the current, sad strip-mall aesthetics to something more environmentally friendly, more pedestrian friendly and more attractive for all of the users of this community. Make it greener, make it safer, make it better looking and more useful!!!
Any revitalization of North Berkeley's critically important shopping district must also address the disgraceful condition of the sidewalk fronting the shops along the eastern side of Shattuck Avenue between Vine and Rose streets. So many contractors have hacked into it over the decades that it more resembles a washboard than a place to stroll.
Additionally, now that Saul's Deli and Masse's Pastries offer outside seating, the width of the sidewalk is too narrow for both tables and pedestrians. Like hundreds of shoppers each day, I use the tables and chairs in front of Saul's Deli and Masse's Pastries. Every single time I sit there I see folks get blocked up and stuck between the seated diners and the storefronts – legs tangled in dog-leashes, wheelchair users forced to beg for passage, babes and their mothers playing bumper-cars with their strollers. Every time I have a cup of coffee out in front of Masse's Pastry I see vehicles bump into my fellow diners. It's a serious injury-accident waiting to happen. A great example of how that sidewalk should work can be found in front of the French Hotel where the city created a slightly widened sidewalk that allows both uses while also making it safer to cross the street from the post office.
By failing to address the concerns of merchants in the area the Stoloff 'Grand Plaza Plan' united much of the residential community against that proposal, but not against any improvements. At every meeting I attended, both public and private, the vast majority of those in attendance were in favor of modest, incremental, ecologically sound improvements. Unfortunately there also were always a few loudmouths who screeched out their complaints (out of turn) and made ridiculous inflammatory personal attacks. As a result each public meeting had fewer and fewer folks in attendance. One of the few neighborhood community meetings that actually accomplished its goals, and didn't dissolve in rancor, was the North Berkeley Vision Committee chaired by Linda Bargmeyer.
There were two key points developed by that group, both of which were endorsed by two of the area's neighborhood associations. The first point is called 'Goodness of Living':
“We want North Berkeley to remain a strong and cohesive neighborhood community, not a domain of anonymity. We do not want it transformed into a high-density city, like San Francisco. We want to increase opportunities to interact with neighbors, friends, and business owners and their employees, which includes protecting neighborhood streets from the incursion of high-volume traffic; and, promoting the needs of children, teenagers and seniors.”
'Goodness' is defined as a strong sense of community; close proximity to nature; the availability of quiet and environmentally safe public transportation; close proximity to intellectual, cultural, and outdoor activities; opportunities to participate in the democratic process and influence living conditions; opportunities to know and interact with neighbors; opportunities to savor good food and drink; access to vibrant and diversified local shops; an ability to preserve our connection to the past; the opportunity to understand diverse people; and the ability to afford living here.
The second key factor was protecting our small independent businesses:
“Businesses are an integral part of our community. Some of the local businesses are particularly excellent and are models for the kind of customer/business relationship that we desire and would like to foster. These businesses have excellent products as well as excellent customer interaction. We know many of the owners and their employees. We care whether they survive.
“We would like to support small, independent businesses by improving what we have, not by … increasing the financial burden of current proprietors. We are concerned about raising rents. We are also concerned that the construction process itself can drive current proprietors out of business. Therefore, if there is to be change, it should be incremental rather than massively disruptive.”
If the community and the city can work within those constraints, not only will we preserve and improve our contributions to the local sales tax base, we’ll improve our neighborhood as well.
-- Fred Dodsworth
It is past time for the city of Berkeley to complete its long-delayed civic improvements in the North Shattuck commercial district. Approximately eight years ago, after intensive community involvement, a program of modest, incremental, civic improvements was created and approved by the community and the city council. That program became stalled when Planning Commission member David Stoloff initiated his 'grand' North Shattuck Plaza plan. Mr. Stoloff's scheme is dead, but the problems remain. Among those is the necessary redesign of the intersection at Shattuck Avenue and Vine Street.
The current design of that intersection is murderously and poorly conceived. The city has planned pedestrian bulb-outs there, which will make walking across that intersection much safer. In the last 20 plus years, that intersection has been the site of least two pedestrian deaths. My youngest son saw one of those accidents, where a young pregnant woman was torn in half. There have been many more less horrific accidents, and many more near misses.
While it's just a hop across the crosswalk for the young and agile, for those moving more slowly it is a journey too dangerous and too far, with too many distracted motorists gunning desperately for that 'last' parking space. Like many elderly in our neighborhood, my 82-year-old mother-in-law refuses to attempt to cross Shattuck Avenue at Vine Street if she can't begin her journey immediately upon the light turning green. She’s not alone. I see elderly pedestrians standing out in traffic regularly at that intersection.
Complicating the problems is that Safeway has announced it plans to double its size in North Berkeley. Less than a block away, this will dramatically and dangerously increase both pedestrian and automotive traffic at the intersection of Vine and Shattuck.
Again returning to the plan already designed and approved eight years ago, the barren, useless and underutilized concrete peninsula in front of Coldwell Banker's realty firm is too small to be effectively re-purposed and too large to be wasted as no more than a plinth for newspaper stands. That wasteland is a perfect place to transition from the current, sad strip-mall aesthetics to something more environmentally friendly, more pedestrian friendly and more attractive for all of the users of this community. Make it greener, make it safer, make it better looking and more useful!!!
Any revitalization of North Berkeley's critically important shopping district must also address the disgraceful condition of the sidewalk fronting the shops along the eastern side of Shattuck Avenue between Vine and Rose streets. So many contractors have hacked into it over the decades that it more resembles a washboard than a place to stroll.
Additionally, now that Saul's Deli and Masse's Pastries offer outside seating, the width of the sidewalk is too narrow for both tables and pedestrians. Like hundreds of shoppers each day, I use the tables and chairs in front of Saul's Deli and Masse's Pastries. Every single time I sit there I see folks get blocked up and stuck between the seated diners and the storefronts – legs tangled in dog-leashes, wheelchair users forced to beg for passage, babes and their mothers playing bumper-cars with their strollers. Every time I have a cup of coffee out in front of Masse's Pastry I see vehicles bump into my fellow diners. It's a serious injury-accident waiting to happen. A great example of how that sidewalk should work can be found in front of the French Hotel where the city created a slightly widened sidewalk that allows both uses while also making it safer to cross the street from the post office.
By failing to address the concerns of merchants in the area the Stoloff 'Grand Plaza Plan' united much of the residential community against that proposal, but not against any improvements. At every meeting I attended, both public and private, the vast majority of those in attendance were in favor of modest, incremental, ecologically sound improvements. Unfortunately there also were always a few loudmouths who screeched out their complaints (out of turn) and made ridiculous inflammatory personal attacks. As a result each public meeting had fewer and fewer folks in attendance. One of the few neighborhood community meetings that actually accomplished its goals, and didn't dissolve in rancor, was the North Berkeley Vision Committee chaired by Linda Bargmeyer.
There were two key points developed by that group, both of which were endorsed by two of the area's neighborhood associations. The first point is called 'Goodness of Living':
“We want North Berkeley to remain a strong and cohesive neighborhood community, not a domain of anonymity. We do not want it transformed into a high-density city, like San Francisco. We want to increase opportunities to interact with neighbors, friends, and business owners and their employees, which includes protecting neighborhood streets from the incursion of high-volume traffic; and, promoting the needs of children, teenagers and seniors.”
'Goodness' is defined as a strong sense of community; close proximity to nature; the availability of quiet and environmentally safe public transportation; close proximity to intellectual, cultural, and outdoor activities; opportunities to participate in the democratic process and influence living conditions; opportunities to know and interact with neighbors; opportunities to savor good food and drink; access to vibrant and diversified local shops; an ability to preserve our connection to the past; the opportunity to understand diverse people; and the ability to afford living here.
The second key factor was protecting our small independent businesses:
“Businesses are an integral part of our community. Some of the local businesses are particularly excellent and are models for the kind of customer/business relationship that we desire and would like to foster. These businesses have excellent products as well as excellent customer interaction. We know many of the owners and their employees. We care whether they survive.
“We would like to support small, independent businesses by improving what we have, not by … increasing the financial burden of current proprietors. We are concerned about raising rents. We are also concerned that the construction process itself can drive current proprietors out of business. Therefore, if there is to be change, it should be incremental rather than massively disruptive.”
If the community and the city can work within those constraints, not only will we preserve and improve our contributions to the local sales tax base, we’ll improve our neighborhood as well.
-- Fred Dodsworth
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Has all the screaming killed LOCCNA?
I didn't go to last week's LOCCNA meeting (Sept. 18).
I have little stomach for the petty name calling that so many of LOCCNA's meetings devolve into thanks to the relentless rancor of Art Goldberg and Julie Ross.
Instead, I went to Palm Springs and suffered greatly, swimming and hiking in the sun.
Friends of mine did go to the meeting and reported back that there were as many as 25 people in attendance! I was also told that nothing of substance was decided.
Once upon a time, 150 to 200 folks would show up for these little get-togethers.
For this the LOCCNA representatives again delayed the tripartite meeting scheduled to be held in late August?
I have little stomach for the petty name calling that so many of LOCCNA's meetings devolve into thanks to the relentless rancor of Art Goldberg and Julie Ross.
Instead, I went to Palm Springs and suffered greatly, swimming and hiking in the sun.
Friends of mine did go to the meeting and reported back that there were as many as 25 people in attendance! I was also told that nothing of substance was decided.
Once upon a time, 150 to 200 folks would show up for these little get-togethers.
For this the LOCCNA representatives again delayed the tripartite meeting scheduled to be held in late August?
Friday, September 14, 2007
Faux Community
Last week Alan Gould's LOCCNA posted flyers around North Berkeley announcing yet another community meeting on September 18 to discuss the North Shattuck Plaza plan. This would be ironic if it weren't so dishonest. Neither Alan, nor the rest of the cabal of Do-Nothing Naysayers who shout down ever other opinion want to discuss any possible changes in the North Berkeley commercial corridor. They're adamantly opposed to any improvement.
At the same meeting they have announced their intention to discuss 'Kitchen Democracy,' a volunteer organization that uses the internet to afford local voters the opportunity to discuss and poll each other on local issues.
To read a good article that examines Kitchen Democracy and its founders see this story which ran in the Berkeley Daily Planet last year. If the link doesn't work paste the following URL into your browser. http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?issue=06-13-06&storyID=24378.
Of course, after Kitchen Democracy recently featured the North Shattuck Plaza Plan, and the community input came back neatly divided equally for and against the plan, Steve Martinot, one the the cabal of Do-Nothing Naysayers, wrote a long-winded and typically inarticulate hatchet job on Kitchen Democracy which ran as an opinion piece in the Planet!
To see Mr Martinot's hit piece paste the following URL http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/text/article.cfm?archiveDate=08-31-07&storyID=27913 in your browser.
For those who aren't familiar, Mr. Martinot is the significant other to Maryann Brewin, who serves on the LOCCNA steering committee and is one of three elected representatives to the tri-partite committee of merchants, landlords and residents which is ostensibly charged with meeting to discuss possible improvements to the area. Mr. Martinot has loudly and belligerently stated on numerous public occasions that he is totally opposed to any possible changes in the area. So much for democracy, in the kitchen or out of it.
For those who aren't familiar, LOCCNA was founded to oppose the construction of Congregation Beth El's temple on Oxford Street, also in North Berkeley. After years of litigation and hundreds of rancorous public meetings, the religious edifice was built but the LOCCNA promised degradation and destruction of our community failed to materialize.
At the same meeting they have announced their intention to discuss 'Kitchen Democracy,' a volunteer organization that uses the internet to afford local voters the opportunity to discuss and poll each other on local issues.
To read a good article that examines Kitchen Democracy and its founders see this story which ran in the Berkeley Daily Planet last year. If the link doesn't work paste the following URL into your browser. http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?issue=06-13-06&storyID=24378.
Of course, after Kitchen Democracy recently featured the North Shattuck Plaza Plan, and the community input came back neatly divided equally for and against the plan, Steve Martinot, one the the cabal of Do-Nothing Naysayers, wrote a long-winded and typically inarticulate hatchet job on Kitchen Democracy which ran as an opinion piece in the Planet!
To see Mr Martinot's hit piece paste the following URL http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/text/article.cfm?archiveDate=08-31-07&storyID=27913 in your browser.
For those who aren't familiar, Mr. Martinot is the significant other to Maryann Brewin, who serves on the LOCCNA steering committee and is one of three elected representatives to the tri-partite committee of merchants, landlords and residents which is ostensibly charged with meeting to discuss possible improvements to the area. Mr. Martinot has loudly and belligerently stated on numerous public occasions that he is totally opposed to any possible changes in the area. So much for democracy, in the kitchen or out of it.
For those who aren't familiar, LOCCNA was founded to oppose the construction of Congregation Beth El's temple on Oxford Street, also in North Berkeley. After years of litigation and hundreds of rancorous public meetings, the religious edifice was built but the LOCCNA promised degradation and destruction of our community failed to materialize.
Monday, September 3, 2007
A little birdy told me....
A little birdy happened to be sitting in a local cafe recently and overheard a large group of North Shattuck Plaza proponents and their enablers gathered together to discuss the most recent iteration of Dave Stoloff's Grand North Berkeley Plaza Plan.
It seems the septuagenarian city planner wants to bring the worst of all worlds to North Berkeley by creating a faux North Berkeley Plaza, which would simply eliminate the parking in the frontage road area with roadblocks and signage -- so we can all experience the grandness of his vision.
Of course, one retired city planning professor's vision is every other neighbor's nightmare.
The net result of this most recent proposal would be to inflict upon us all of the negatives (no parking, poor access to the stores, and a vast, ugly, neglected and unused space), and none of his plan's alleged positives (a sense of place, gracious and ecological landscaping, improved and expanded sidewalk living space).
According to my spies, while most of the assembled enablers were supportive, a few folks suggested that this would only exacerbate the antipathy of the already grossly irritated anti-plaza crowd.
Meanwhile another birdy told me (thank you, Mary Ann Brewin) that the cult of Do-Nothing Naysayers who've hijacked the email list known as LOCCNA --you know who you are-- are rumored to be planning a community meeting in September.
One might wish that such a meeting would be intended to better understand the community's concerns and desires, or to better inform the community about the options we have for improving our lot -- but if one imagined such a fantasy, one is bound to live a life filled with disappointment.
The sole intended result of this planned upcoming community meeting is to effect my removal as one of LOCCNA's three elected representative to the tripartite meetings of merchants, landlords and neighbors.
It seems I didn't get the memo that stated the members of LOCCNA were irresolvably and adamantly against any and every attempt to improve the appearance of our community.
Of course only one of these tripartite meeting has been held so far, and that one immediately devolved into hysterical legal threats from LOCCNA's unelected representative, Julie Ross. Her shrieking was immediately mated to insults and screams from Art 'Duplicitous Insect' Goldberg.
Poor little orphans, it is you who are rendering yourselves useless and redundant. If all you have to offer is shrieking and shouting soon no one will want to listen to you.
The reality is that the neighborhood is clearly divided.
Some folks (merchants, landlords and residents) want nothing changed. (We used to call such people reactionaries because they never came up with any proposals but could be counted upon to dump on anything anyone else suggested.)
Then again, Mr Stoloff's groupies want his ill-conceived, over-reaching, expensive and pompous plaza (several beloved local merchants have publicly stated this will lead to the death of their businesses).
But most folks just want something slightly more attractive and more useful than what is there now. Something that will improve the area without choking it to death, something that can be done inexpensively, incrementally, and sensitively.
Meanwhile LOCCNA's coven of Do-Nothing, Naysayers have unilaterally canceled two scheduled tripartite meetings to discuss these issues. (The first meeting LOCCNA's agents canceled was scheduled for April and the second for August 22). This group's obstructionist tactics have now delayed this process by more than six months.
It seems the septuagenarian city planner wants to bring the worst of all worlds to North Berkeley by creating a faux North Berkeley Plaza, which would simply eliminate the parking in the frontage road area with roadblocks and signage -- so we can all experience the grandness of his vision.
Of course, one retired city planning professor's vision is every other neighbor's nightmare.
The net result of this most recent proposal would be to inflict upon us all of the negatives (no parking, poor access to the stores, and a vast, ugly, neglected and unused space), and none of his plan's alleged positives (a sense of place, gracious and ecological landscaping, improved and expanded sidewalk living space).
According to my spies, while most of the assembled enablers were supportive, a few folks suggested that this would only exacerbate the antipathy of the already grossly irritated anti-plaza crowd.
Meanwhile another birdy told me (thank you, Mary Ann Brewin) that the cult of Do-Nothing Naysayers who've hijacked the email list known as LOCCNA --you know who you are-- are rumored to be planning a community meeting in September.
One might wish that such a meeting would be intended to better understand the community's concerns and desires, or to better inform the community about the options we have for improving our lot -- but if one imagined such a fantasy, one is bound to live a life filled with disappointment.
The sole intended result of this planned upcoming community meeting is to effect my removal as one of LOCCNA's three elected representative to the tripartite meetings of merchants, landlords and neighbors.
It seems I didn't get the memo that stated the members of LOCCNA were irresolvably and adamantly against any and every attempt to improve the appearance of our community.
Of course only one of these tripartite meeting has been held so far, and that one immediately devolved into hysterical legal threats from LOCCNA's unelected representative, Julie Ross. Her shrieking was immediately mated to insults and screams from Art 'Duplicitous Insect' Goldberg.
Poor little orphans, it is you who are rendering yourselves useless and redundant. If all you have to offer is shrieking and shouting soon no one will want to listen to you.
The reality is that the neighborhood is clearly divided.
Some folks (merchants, landlords and residents) want nothing changed. (We used to call such people reactionaries because they never came up with any proposals but could be counted upon to dump on anything anyone else suggested.)
Then again, Mr Stoloff's groupies want his ill-conceived, over-reaching, expensive and pompous plaza (several beloved local merchants have publicly stated this will lead to the death of their businesses).
But most folks just want something slightly more attractive and more useful than what is there now. Something that will improve the area without choking it to death, something that can be done inexpensively, incrementally, and sensitively.
Meanwhile LOCCNA's coven of Do-Nothing, Naysayers have unilaterally canceled two scheduled tripartite meetings to discuss these issues. (The first meeting LOCCNA's agents canceled was scheduled for April and the second for August 22). This group's obstructionist tactics have now delayed this process by more than six months.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
1505 Shattuck Ave.
When Allen Connolly applied to the Landmark Preservation Commission for permission to tear down the one-story building at 1505 Shattuck Avenue, the most important parts of the story were ignored.
I personally am not concerned about the historic providence of 1505 Shattuck, but I'm very concerned about Allen's plans for replacing that small, one-story building with a larger, two-story building that will also have at least one residential unit.
A few days ago Allen's aide-de-camp, John Coleman, told me Allen being 'forced' to build a residence atop his building by 'the city.' According to Mr Coleman, because Allen wanted to expand the size of the building, the city was forcing him to put in housing.
If this is actually the case, what can we reasonably expect Safeway's enormous redevelopment project to bring to our community?
Safeway's current store also on Shattuck Avenue, less than half a block away, is only 27,000 square feet Safeway's representative, Todd Paradis, told the community on Thursday, May 31. Todd also said Safeway isn't planning for any housing atop its new 40,000 to 60,000 square foot store.
These two stories, don't add up to one believable tale.
I've invited John to write up an explanation of Allen's predicament for the several local neighborhood web-forums, but he seemed reluctant to commit.
I don't know who to believe and I've been around developers too long to take them at face value.
In the 1970s we had both the Landmark Preservation Ordinance and the NPO, a Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, which was passed by vote of the people. The NPO allowed neighbors to have a voice in what was built in their community.
Unfortunately Berkeley's civic leaders allowed the NPO to be gutted and made non-responsive to community concerns by putting all of the NPO's tools into the purview of the planning department.
Because we no longer have an effective Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, we're left with using poor tools, such as the 'LPO' for controlling development.
Irrespective of the specific history of the building known as 1505 Shattuck, it appears that the entire group of lots known as the Squires Block has been landmarked by the city of Berkeley. The Squires Block includes the two-story building now housing the woman's fashion store called Earthly Goods, on the corner of Vine Street and Shattuck Avenue; the former home of North Berkeley Wines (1505 Shattuck Avenue); the one-story brick storefront on Vine Street; and the ancient brick buildings behind all of those buildings.
Welcome to North Berkeley
The world expands.
Evidently I'm a noisy, nosy, noxious fellow with too many opinions and too many questions.
Last week Alan Gould kicked me off his LOCCNA, the anti-North Berkeley Plaza email listserve, for the sin of 'posting too often.'
I've always believed the best way to confront an issue is to dive into it, so I've decided to expand the scope of my North Berkeley Plaza blog to cover everything north of Hearst, east of Euclid, and west of Shattuck.
Welcome to my logorrhea.
To see what came before, click here or go to http://northshattuckplaza.blogspot.com/
Evidently I'm a noisy, nosy, noxious fellow with too many opinions and too many questions.
Last week Alan Gould kicked me off his LOCCNA, the anti-North Berkeley Plaza email listserve, for the sin of 'posting too often.'
I've always believed the best way to confront an issue is to dive into it, so I've decided to expand the scope of my North Berkeley Plaza blog to cover everything north of Hearst, east of Euclid, and west of Shattuck.
Welcome to my logorrhea.
To see what came before, click here or go to http://northshattuckplaza.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
