Public Comment

UC Planning Students Express Their Opinions on Berkeley Issues

Tuesday August 16, 2011 - 10:01:00 PM

Editor’s Note: These opinion essays were written as a class assignment in U.C. Berkeley’s City Planning 110, taught by Ricardo G. Huerta Nino, a graduate student at the Goldman School of Public Policy. They are published as submitted to the Planet by the authors, who are undergraduates at UCB.  


 

“To [tea] or not to [tea]: this is the question.” While this line is not exactly how William Shakespeare envision the beginning of one of his most famous soliloquy to be used, it is precisely applicable to the discussion the city council had last month, as the A’cuppa Tea owners filed a request for a conditional use permit in order to move into a vacant store slot in the Elmwood Business District, originally zoned for personal and household services. After a long and tedious discussion, the city council upheld the pervious ruling that the Zoning Adjustment Board had approved, and they granted a conditional use permit that rezone the vacant storefront into a quick service restaurant.  

Given that the basic goal of a conditional use permit is to permit a full range of land uses required for a community to function, the Zoning Adjustment Board, and subsequently the city council, reached a decision without considering the Elmwood neighborhood’s best interest. By doing so, they failed to properly consider whether A’cuppa Tea had any significant neighborhood or local merchant backing to approve the project, and they overlooked the domination that would be created by one type of use, quick service restaurants, in the district.  

In order for a conditional use permit on a property to be considered, it must have public support within the community. Meaning that if an owner cannot show that they have attained a significant amount of support within a neighborhood, they are seldom granted a permit. This case is no different as the owners failed to contact, much less gain the approval of, the Elmwood Merchants Association or the Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association, two of the largest and most influential groups within this community. Instead, the owners took the backdoor approach of gathering petition signatures from thier existing costumers, and later, they claimed that since their existing establishment, located two blocks away just outside the Elmwood community, was near the proposed move that those same costumers would still frequent their business. While in theory this may be true, it still doesn’t overshadow that fact that the majority of the Elmwood neighborhood was, and still is, clearly against this move.  

Additionally, the Zoning Board was a bit careless in its attempts to fill empty storefronts that it discounted certain factors that could potentially by detrimental to the community. It completely ignored established quotas within the Elmwood Business District that would prevent the domination of a certain type of use. With six existing coffee/tea shop within the two-block radius, the addition of another shop serving the same function makes no sense at all. The threat of an over saturation of competition should really not be overlooked, as it has the potential to undercut surrounding shop’s profit due to the limited clientele. It is for this reason precisely why quotas in the district are in place, and why they must be enforced. This became extremely apparent in the recent relocation of the Far Leaves Tea shop out of the Elmwood community. If business of the same function as A’cuppa Tea leaving the area isn’t a clear indication that the need for another shop is extremely unnecessary, then what is? What is it going to take for the city council to realize the mistake they made? Will it take one or two cafés to relocate or file bankruptcy in order for the city council to acknowledge their error?  

While allowing a teashop now might seem like not a significant issue, this ruling could potentially lead to a waterfall of more similar use permit issuance that would transform this local business district to a one-dimensional use district, leading to the demise of a perfectly functional community. Surely, if it were up to the Elmwood neighborhood, there is no question that they would choose the latter option of the opening quote, “not to tea.”  

 

——Jorge Covarrubias  


 

Berkeley’s general plan outlines seven main goals that serve as guidelines for public decision making. In this brief outline, the general plan calls for many things; however, not many are mentioned twice – the call for Berkeley to be disaster ready is. Berkeley’s unfortunate location right next to the Hayward fault and unfortunate soil stratigraphy is, simply put, a disaster just waiting to happen. The way in which the Berkeley general plan mentions earthquakes and the risks involved are outrageously outdated.  

The most recent study by the USGS predicting the probabilities of a large magnitude, above 6.7, earthquake in the Bay Area was done in 2008. The study revealed that the probability of an earthquake of 6.7 magnitude or larger is 63% over the next 30 years – with a 31% chance of that earthquake happening on the Hayward fault. Not so great for Berkeley. In addition to the high probability of a large earthquake in the region and the direct damage caused by the shaking, there is also the issue of liquefaction – essentially the complete loss of strength in soil. The USGS released a map detailing the liquefaction susceptibility of soil in the Bay Area on a scale of very low to very high. Coincidentally, Berkeley is in the very high or high zones.  

As a undergraduate at UC Berkeley pursuing a degree in civil engineering, I have noticed a few things that don’t mesh well with those probabilities. In my 3 years of living in Berkeley near the UC Berkeley campus, I have noticed a good number of signs warning residents that the buildings they live in are not earthquake safe. Should they even be allowed to rent out rooms in a building like that? What good does it do to inform renters about a potentially life threatening issue and then do nothing to remedy it? Things like the signs are fairly obvious, but there are also plenty of structurally unsound designs in many other buildings around campus. For instance, my apartment building doesn’t have a sign warning me about its inability to survive an earthquake but I still wouldn’t expect it to stand. Due to our proximity to the Hayward fault, you can expect the strongest waves to come off in the North-South direction. My building has a giant parking lot on the first floor so it starts out with a lower shear strength capacity than a regular building. Then of course – for the two walls that would resist the earthquake motion – they put a large garage door in one, and another entrance in the other further reducing the already low shear strength. Not the best from a structural standpoint.  

Recently, advances in civil engineering have allowed us to be able to design for earthquakes in the USGS predicted range; however, it is definitely a valid argument that these retrofits are not cheap. It would be impossible to force seismic retrofits on every building in the city of Berkeley; instead information about the expected seismic performance of buildings as well as the studies done by the USGS should be made publicly available. The residents should be allowed to make an informed decision as to whether the benefits of a seismic retrofit outweigh the risks. Of course there are repercussions to simply informing people that their residences are not seismically safe. Robert Seed, a professor in geotechnical engineering at UC Berkeley, loves to bring up the question whether or not he should go up to people and inform them that their house will collapse in an earthquake. He doesn’t. His reason is that people would rather sue him for lowering their property values than thank him for the warning. Is this the type of city we want Berkeley to be? Nowhere in the general plan does the Berkeley general plan mention retaining high property values. That’s an issue of private property rights. But are those private property rights equivalent to the significant damages and loss of life that would be caused during an earthquake? Likely not.  

 

Berkeley’s general plan outlines seven main goals that serve as guidelines for public decision making. In this brief outline, the general plan calls for many things; however, not many are mentioned twice – the call for Berkeley to be disaster ready is. Berkeley’s unfortunate location right next to the Hayward fault and unfortunate soil stratigraphy is, simply put, a disaster just waiting to happen. The way in which the Berkeley general plan mentions earthquakes and the risks involved are outrageously outdated.  

The most recent study by the USGS predicting the probabilities of a large magnitude, above 6.7, earthquake in the Bay Area was done in 2008. The study revealed that the probability of an earthquake of 6.7 magnitude or larger is 63% over the next 30 years – with a 31% chance of that earthquake happening on the Hayward fault. Not so great for Berkeley. In addition to the high probability of a large earthquake in the region and the direct damage caused by the shaking, there is also the issue of liquefaction – essentially the complete loss of strength in soil. The USGS released a map detailing the liquefaction susceptibility of soil in the Bay Area on a scale of very low to very high. Coincidentally, Berkeley is in the very high or high zones.  

As a undergraduate at UC Berkeley pursuing a degree in civil engineering, I have noticed a few things that don’t mesh well with those probabilities. In my 3 years of living in Berkeley near the UC Berkeley campus, I have noticed a good number of signs warning residents that the buildings they live in are not earthquake safe. Should they even be allowed to rent out rooms in a building like that? What good does it do to inform renters about a potentially life threatening issue and then do nothing to remedy it? Things like the signs are fairly obvious, but there are also plenty of structurally unsound designs in many other buildings around campus. For instance, my apartment building doesn’t have a sign warning me about its inability to survive an earthquake but I still wouldn’t expect it to stand. Due to our proximity to the Hayward fault, you can expect the strongest waves to come off in the North-South direction. My building has a giant parking lot on the first floor so it starts out with a lower shear strength capacity than a regular building. Then of course – for the two walls that would resist the earthquake motion – they put a large garage door in one, and another entrance in the other further reducing the already low shear strength. Not the best from a structural standpoint.  

Recently, advances in civil engineering have allowed us to be able to design for earthquakes in the USGS predicted range; however, it is definitely a valid argument that these retrofits are not cheap. It would be impossible to force seismic retrofits on every building in the city of Berkeley; instead information about the expected seismic performance of buildings as well as the studies done by the USGS should be made publicly available. The residents should be allowed to make an informed decision as to whether the benefits of a seismic retrofit outweigh the risks. Of course there are repercussions to simply informing people that their residences are not seismically safe. Robert Seed, a professor in geotechnical engineering at UC Berkeley, loves to bring up the question whether or not he should go up to people and inform them that their house will collapse in an earthquake. He doesn’t. His reason is that people would rather sue him for lowering their property values than thank him for the warning. Is this the type of city we want Berkeley to be? Nowhere in the general plan does the Berkeley general plan mention retaining high property values. That’s an issue of private property rights. But are those private property rights equivalent to the significant damages and loss of life that would be caused during an earthquake? Likely not.  

—Forrest Zhang  


 

Being a resident of Berkeley, I note that the introduction of a new “lifestyle” store by Safeway arouses wide concern. Some people welcome the program with applause; others strongly oppose it, so this issue should be well taken into consideration from different perspectives.  

The Drive-In Culture and Suburban Business Model  

In the plan, Safeway will demolish their existing store and adjacent gas station at 6310 College Avenue at Rockridge Community and will be replaced by a new “lifestyle” store, which includes a two-storey structure, with ground-floor retail spaces, a restaurant and a parking garage.  

The creation of drive-in culture and the rise of suburbanization in the United States are inextricable. Suburban communities were established as early as the late 19th century and grew rapidly during the post-war period. Throughout the history, the government has made auto-oriented suburbs possible through different policies and tools, such as the highway system, education system and the federal housing loans, zoning and traffic engineering. Not surprisingly, merchants soon adapted to the suburban shift and created a unique suburban business model. The supermarket chains later were engaged in place-making behavior of their own.  

Feasibility of the Model?  

Nowadays, supermarkets in the United States has an iconic image of a large lot located away from the city center and comprised of an enormous one-storey square building surrounded by tons of parking space. Motor vehicles restructured the everyday life of all Americans. Supermarkets that we understand today, were created in a suburb, and hence inherit suburban characteristics.  

Then it comes to the question: is the suburban (business) model feasible and practical throughout the States? In respect of the new plan of Safeway, most opponents express their worries about its size and scale, and criticize that this suburban (business) model should not be applied in an urban setting, like Rockridge Community.  

As a matter of fact, people in Alameda County still heavily depend on motorized vehicles for their livelihood. In order to ensure Safeway’s business success, it is understandably that Safeway applies their “suburban” business model into Oakland. Geographically, the Rockridge Community is located at the border of City of Berkeley and City of Oakland. It is a unique community, which characterizes by a mixture of urban and suburban settings. At one side of the community, the residential area towards to hillside resembled a suburban living, while the residential area toward downtown direction is an urban mixed-used setting surrounded by public-transit networks. In the light of two settings, Safeway will need to strike a balance between the two settings.  

Safeway’s effort in fitting into the Rockridge Community  

In 2009, Safeway first introduced its plan, however, it was “widely criticized for an unimaginative suburban design.” It seems that the plan was impracticable and ironic.  

Based on the business model of suburban setting, Safeway modified its plan and comes back in July 2011 with a new design. Here are some of Safeway’s major changes:  

(a) Provision of parking areas  

AlamedaCountyhas a heavy reliance on private motorized vehicle. According to US Census 2000, over 80% of the workers at 16 years and over go to work by car, truck, or van. Some residents criticized about the insufficiency of the parking space, as there is a shortage of parking spaces in the existing parking structure.  

In view of this, the Safeway modified its suburban business model and provide underground parking garage instead of huge parking lots, to fit into a more urban community. That means the structure can accommodate more drivers while making room for other things, including more and higher-quality open spaces. Parking garages is always good because they can keep cars cool in the summer and dry when it rains or snows.  

(b) Improvement of local transportation network  

To ease the problem of clogged roads and to improve transportation option, Safeway takes initiatives to mingle into the Rockridge Community and works with local authorities to improve the local transportation network. For example, (1) the 51 bus lane will be improved by adding bus bulb-out, bus shelter and additional nearby seating; (2) Increasing area’s pedestrian and bicycle network through measures adding pedestrian bulb-out and various bicycle facilities.  

Obviously, building up a new structure of the suburban business model by Safeway is one of the changes to the way of life at the Rockridge Community. People hold different attitudes towards the changes.  

To further decrease motor traffic, Safeway is attempting to provide offering commuter benefits for employees and other incentives to encourage public transportation.  

Upon the modification of the plan, Safeway make efforts to mingle into the community. If done well, the new model can serve the community that provides parking spaces and improve the transportation network within the Rockridge Community.  

From the opinion stated above, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I support this Safeway’s plan.  

—June Lai  


Why We Should Support the Rockridge Safeway Plan  

 

Our President once said, “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.”  

I am a City and Regional Planning student at UC Berkeley, as well as a loyal customer of the Rockridge Safeway store. Safeway is currently seeking to redevelop the store to a three-story structure, including an expanded Safeway store with a greater variety of merchandize, a retail-lined walk-street, a roof top garden, restaurants and underground parking. Vocal neighbors have been complaining about the plan; but I don’t see their point.  

The enlarged store and added businesses will serve current customers better while attracting new customers. Research findings indicate a very low Retail Food Environment Index in Oakland. In other words, citizens have to either travel a long distance for a grocery chain or purchase their food at a higher price and lower variety at local markets. The new Safeway, apart from adding merchandize choices to current departments, will introduce bakery, pharmacy, and service meat, and seafood departments.  

Critics blame the greater variety for competing with local stores, but who would resist against a lower price with more choices brought by a grocery chain? What’s more, in our market-based economy, whoever can please customers wins. Why should we sacrifice customer’s needs just because of the few corner stores?  

The redeveloped site will bring more revenue to our money-thirsty city not at the expense of citizens. With only 9% of the general fund revenue of Oakland sales tax revenue, the problem of retail leakage in Oakland has been jeopardizing the city budget as Oakland citizens travel to other cities, like Emeryville, for shopping. For example, although Emeryville has only 1/40 of Oakland’s population, it receives 1/10 of Oakland’s sales tax revenue. Apart from benefitting the community by employment, a mouth-watering $350,000 increase in property tax and a $52,000 increase in sales tax will go to the city of Oakland.  

The project has received criticism regarding its huge size, yet smaller size means less tax revenue to the city. This may not be appealing to everyone, but more revenue means more spending on public services and infrastructures. The city will have the foundation to recruit more police officers to fight crime, renovate the old public schools for our kids, and repave the bumpy roads that everyone drives on. Why should we sacrifice Oakland citizens’ needs just because of its larger size on the same site? Might want to finish with a statement of what you’re trying to say instead of asking a question.  

The project helps develop Rockridge as a regional center with ideas of Smart Growth, the adaptive city theory as well as sustainable development principles, which city planners and environmentalists highly anticipate. The construction of ground-level retail shops facing the street and underground parking with minimal driveway cuts will make the new site very pedestrian friendly. While the site has close proximity to Rockridge BART and major bus lines, the new urban design will also offer a nice walk from BART to Safeway with the help of current pedestrian-friendly design along College Avenue.  

These conforms with Smart Growth and adaptive city theory, which advocates compact and transit-oriented development, as well as the adaptive city theory, which advocate compact pedestrian-friendly environments, with the urban design elements like benches and bus shelters, to be built next to a railway station. What’s more, the utilization of natural light, energy efficient appliances, as well as the “oasis” – the roof top garden – respond to principles of sustainable development as well in our current world that loves being green.  

Some critics see traffic congestion as a major problem of the site. However, Safeway is already applying contemporary city planning principles that advocate walking and transit use. As a matter of responsibility, we should blame the city of Berkeley and Oakland for applying excessive traffic calming measures on most streets and Caltrans for not expanding Ashby Avenue, instead of blaming a business that have no right to alter road infrastructures. Why should we sacrifice possibly the East Bay’s needs for a regional center just because of a few more cars?  

I see the Safeway plan as a benefit for customers, a resource for the city, and an invigoration for city planners and our future. Similar plans like the North Berkeley Safeway redevelopment plan has already passed. Why are we still resistant to new changes without looking further?  

Changes make you wise. I believe all of us are too.  

—Ming Kit Cheung  


I am writing today to argue that bicycles should be charged for using the road in Berkeley. I am not trying to price bicycles off the road. I am merely suggesting that planners and bicycle advocacy groups take a rational and quantitative approach on what kind of bicycle access Berkeley is to allow, and how the cost of doing so should be borne. The approach I suggest is based on the idea of opportunity cost – where bicycles are a car could be – and the idea that pricing should be based on the amount of space a bicycle or car takes up on the road. This idea of opportunity cost follows in the history of planning as optimization, where the objective is to maximize the total social welfare and equity between different groups.  

Bicyclists, through their use of the road, have a responsibility to foot some of the costs of using the road, as do motorists, and pedestrians – yes, pedestrians. Roads must be financed, and although this comes from the city in a general sense, motorists are responsible for footing part of the cost. Pedestrians indirectly pay for roads through sales taxes and property taxes that everyone pays. Cars foot numerous taxes for the right to be on the road. The Vehicle License Free can be viewed as a property tax on vehicles and is based on the value of the vehicle when acquired. (California DMV). It goes towards the cities and counties and is deposited in the Local Safety and Protection Account, Local Revenue Account or the Motor Vehicle License Fee Account in the Transportation Tax fund. Motorists also pay a use tax, generally assessed at the same rate as sales tax in the registered owner’s county of residence. VLF is set at 1.15 percent and in the state of California, use tax comes to 9.25%. On an low end car with base cost $20,000, this amounts to more than $2000 in taxes.  

Cyclists may point out they are happy to pay the same tax on the value of their bicycle, not a car. However, consider again the argument of opportunity cost, what replaces a bicycle is a car.  

Making bicycles pay for using the road may seem absurd – they are small and portable, and are merely sharing roads temporarily with cars. But think about it – whenever we add a bike lane, whenever we allow bicycles into the traffic, we are really taking away space from cars. Bicycles gain while cars lose.  

But what if we really want more bicycles on the road? Bicycles have positive externalities – they encourage a healthy lifestyle and have zero emissions.  

Bicycles have positive externalities and these social benefits should be taken into account in the pricing. But there should be a systematic way of assigning a price to these benefits. One way of deciding how much to money to attribute to the increase in fitness from riding a bicycle is to look at the savings in Medicare for a person who cycles regularly. Also, to increase bicycle usage and foster a less car-dependent culture, tax rebates or monetary incentives can be given to bicyclists.  

Note that it would be unfair to give bicycles money for not causing emissions. The cost of environmental pollution is priced into the tax on gasoline, not the road tax. This makes sense because emissions are proportional to gasoline usage. I say that environmental pollution is priced into the tax on gasoline because the road taxes are going to the Local Transportation Fund and do not seem like an environmental pollution charge. If the cost of pollution has been partially included in road tax, then bicycles are not responsible for that portion of the charge.  

What about cyclists who already own a car? I argue that they should not be made to apy extra because, because the opportunity cost of taking their car is taking their bike. They have already paid for the right to be on the road. If they could simultaneously take both their car and bike on the road, then they ought to pay extra.  

This idea of charging bicycles is not crazy. Recent years have seen the idea of charging bicyclists some kind of registration fee being floated by various lawmakers. Paula Reeves of the state Department of Transportation said that transportation officials have been requested by legislators to look into the idea of establishing such a program,  

But attempts to levy charges on bicyclists have traditionally met with much opposition. See New Jersey, where even a $10 registration charge was met with great resistance from bicycle advocacy groups and eventually disbanded. However, one place it does work is UC Davis, where there are 15,000 to 20,000 bikes on campus daily. Mandatory registration at $8 "works for us. I think it's a valuable tool to manage a large number of bicycles," said David Takemoto-Weerts, bicycle program coordinator at the University of California-Davis. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of UC Davis’ book.  

It may seem as though I am advocating pricing bicycles out of the road. I am not. Cyclists should be given rebates for the positive externalities they create. Cities are more than entitled to additional rebates to achieve a desired level of bicycle usage. Thus far the discussion of bicycle usage has been simply a clashing of opinions and rights. John Forester, in his article “Bounded Rationality and the Politics of Muddling Through”, characterizes such a problem as due to actors in different groups (cyclists, motorists, city officials) having different allegiances, loyalties and interests of their own. Under these circumstances, he recommends that parties bargain with each other and adjust policies incrementally. Although I foresee a lot of opposition, this pricing plan is a first step towards a rational discussion of what areas to bargain on, and I hope that through this dialogue we may reach a conclusion.  

 

—Joanne Chiew