One person was hospitalized with minor injuries in a one-alarm fire at a house on Claremont Boulevard in Berkeley this afternoon, a fire spokesman said. 

The fire at 2833 Claremont Blvd., which is near St. Clement's Episcopal Church, was reported at 12:31 p.m. and was controlled in about 20 minutes, Berkeley Assistant Fire Chief Keith May said. 

May said the blaze caused major damage to the house's second floor and attic. 

All of the house's occupants had gotten out of the house by the time firefighters arrived, he said. 

PG&E crews also responded to the scene because a power line in front of the house went down, May said. 

Berkeley police said the fire forced the closure of Claremont Boulevard between Derby and Russell streets as well as Avalon Avenue at Oak Knoll Terrace.

A structure fire in Berkeley's Claremont district has resulted in a road closure, according to an email from the Berkeley Police Department. Claremont Blvd between Derby and Russell is closed, both north and south bound, and Avalon at Oak knoll is als0 closed north and south bound.

Police are seeking the public's help to solve a series of vandalism incidents that occurred throughout a Berkeley neighborhood last week, police said Monday. 

On Wednesday, at 6:49 a.m., officers responded to the 2400 block of Hillsdale Avenue regarding a report of vandalism that occurred sometime the night before. 

Once there, a resident reported to officers that he discovered that his and his partner's vehicles had been vandalized with spray paint. 

According to police, the victim also noticed that his front gate had been vandalized, in addition to other residents' gates as well as several other cars parked in the area.  

During that call, officers counted 13 different incidents of vandalism that damaged cars and gates in the neighborhood, police said. 

About two hours later at 8:58 a.m., officers learned of additional vandalism cases, this time in the 2300 block of Prospect Street. There, officers found 10 cars with slashed tires, police said. 

About two hours later, officers discovered that seven more cars also had slashed tires in the nearby 2400 block of Prospect Street. 

Because of the close proximity of the 30 total vandalism incidents and the time frame in which they were most likely committed, officers believe the cases are related. 

Police are asking anyone with information or who may have video surveillance in the neighborhood to contact them at (510) 981-5737.

Today was the day I’d hoped to add my own words to the many which have been written and spoken regarding the tragic loss of indefatigable civic activist and critic Elisa Cooper. But really, what more is there to say? Elisa set an example simply by showing up, no matter how she felt, when her intelligent voice was needed to analyse and explain what was going on that shouldn’t be, and what should be happening instead. Her letter to the city council reprinted here, forwarded by Moni Law, is a textbook example of how she formed an opinion about what was happening, supported it by pertinent examples, and then communicated it to decisionmakers in the hope that they’d pay attention. Often, though sadly not always, they did. And this was just one of many such letters and statements she made when she was needed.

In the close to half-century I’ve been back in Berkeley, where I first lived as an undergraduate in 1959, I’ve seen a few heros and heroines who spoke for the public interest pass through and pass on, and I miss them all. I started to make a list, and then realized I could fill up this whole space with the pantheon of those who’ve worked to keep Berkeley Berkeley who have now left us. I’ve written all too many of these tributes. Looking back, I realize that they’ve all ended on essentially the same note, the famous quote from Joe Hill’s last telegram to a friend:

“Don’t mourn, organize!”

So I guess that’s what we should be doing. Avanti populo! 

One of Elisa’s major causes in her last years was protecting her neighborhood from being taken over by greedy speculators. She lived in South Berkeley, near the Ashby BART station and what's lately been called the Adeline corridor. 

Greedy—we used to call them Yuppies, but now they call themselves YIMBYs—covet South and West Berkeley, once the segregated domain of the many Japanese Americans who were sent to concentration camps during World War II. They were replaced by the African Americans who migrated here to support the war effort and are now struggling to hang on. The modest houses here, often homes to multi-generational families with room for backyard gardens, are now being foreclosed on and snatched up for demolition by speculative foreign flight capital to be replaced by "luxury" apartment blocks to be rented at the Bay Area's exorbitantly un-affordable what-the-market-will-bear rates. 

Shills for developers often claim that such projects will add to the supply of affordable housing. But UC Berkeley researchers and others have shown that if trickle-down ever happens it takes at least 50 years, at least a generation. By 2067 time most of South and West Berkeley’s non-White residents will be long gone, not to mention anyone else who must live on extremely low income as Elisa did with her disabilities. 

It’s ironic that these pleasant neighborhoods, which were once reserved for non-Whites by segregation both legal and contractual, are now being expropriated by better-off buyers from privileged backgrounds. That’s what we call gentrification, a peculiar term related to the French “gentile”, meaning nice. The entitled offspring of the almost all White middle-class seem to believe that when they bid up housing prices and move in, the neighborhood is somehow made “nicer” with the addition of laptop cafes and expensive grocery stores. 

After a recent civic meeting where a current resident lamented the loss of backyard sun on her vegetable garden which a tall apartment next door would cause, YIMBY list-servs were full of derogatory references to”zucchini”, with the clear implication that it’s much “nicer” to buy pricey organic produce at Whole Foods than to grow it in your own garden. 

And by the way, YIMBY is supposed to stand for “Yes in My Back Yard”, but in fact it’s actually Yes in Back Yard. A couple of the most prominent upper middle class proponents of market-rate apartment blocks that I happen to know live near North Berkeley’s Gourmet Ghetto and in Piedmont, in very comfortable single family houses with lovely gardens, estimated by Zillow to be worth a cool couple of millions. 

They’re eager to develop Berkeley’s Adeline Corridor, aren’t they, but how about building in their very own backyards? Not bloody likely. 

By the way, Elisa often emphasized that she wasn’t opposed to all development, she just supported appropriate development, to provide housing for people who really needed it, in the right place in the right way. The Berkeley City Council took a baby step in the right direction on Tuesday by upping the amount developers needed to pay instead of (in-lieu of) including affordable apartments in new buildings, but that won’t solve the problem. 

Among other things, now that the Trumpers are in the saddle, it looks like the practice of taking the in-lieu payments and leveraging them with federal funds derived from tax credits to build all-low-income developments isn’t going to work any more because taxes on the rich are going away. If you’re interested in this and want to read a long wonky analysis of why the much-touted Berkeley Way project, in partnership with Bridge Housing, may be doomed to fail, or at least to exhaust any possible foreseeable pot of affordable building capital, read Housing Advisory Commissioner Thomas Lord’s report on the topic, which will be discussed at the Thursday HAC Meeting at the South Berkeley Senior Center, 2939 Ellis St., at 7 p.m. 

You can find the packet by clicking here: 

http://ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Housing/Commissions/Commission_for_Housing_Advisory/2017-07-06%20HAC%20Packet_revised.pdf, 

Then be sure to scroll all the way down to Attachment 6 on page 22. A hard slog with lots of math, but well worth it if you care, and sobering. Here’s where we really miss Elisa, who would have understood it and explained it to us. 

Organizing against the theft of Berkeley’s already affordable neighborhoods by for-profit corporate interests is one way to memorialize Elisa Cooper, but there are many more things going wrong: Take your pick. 

What else can you organize? There are all too many choices. 

Yesterday’s news, for example, brought another chapter in the ongoing saga of the Trump crowd’s war against the tired and the poor. If you want to get an idea of what refugees are up against, you might want to see Berkeley Chamber Opera's upcoming production of The Consul, advertised to the right. 

It’s especially outrageous that what’s left of the State Department thinks sons-in-law and fiancés are core relatives for visa purposes, but we grandmas (and aunts) are not. 

How about Grandmothers and Aunts Against the Ban? Maybe a Knit-In, for those of us too creaky to Sit In? Sounds funny, but of course it’s not…too many outrages, too little time. 

Berkeley lost a champion for justice last Friday. I was sorry and shocked to hear of the death of Elisa Cooper, the person who did her homework on issues and spoke boldly for people who are often overlooked. She was a Cal alum. She was a brilliant researcher and writer. And she struggled financially on a meager $331 disability check. She suffered in pain from a serious health condition-- but she persisted, advocated, raised issues that I care about and hopefully others do as well. She also camped out in the freezing cold with a few of us in 2015 in a vigil for our homeless neighbors.

I told her a couple years ago while attending an event in South Berkeley that I was always impressed by her council comments. She told me that I gave her the courage to start speaking up because she had not until then. I was very touched and humbled. She and I exchanged many emails and strategies on affordable housing.



Moni T. Law, J.D.

---

Dear Councilmembers,

This letter is to reinforce my alarm regarding the ostensible "anti-displacement program" that was buried in the Consent Calendar at the May 2nd Council meeting. The terms for receiving assistance are so strict that they will exclude the people who most need assistance to avoid immediate displacement or homelessness. Most people reach the absolute end of their own resources before even looking for help. Also the City's criteria are similar to Season of Sharing and other emergency rent charities: the City should be helping the people who fall through the cracks of those programs.

As I mentioned during the Council meeting, I wouldn't be eligible for the Anti-Displacement Program under the terms stated. 

1) I pay more than 80% of my income toward rent. I'm not sure it can even be called income since it's State assistance dedicated to rent. 

2) I don't have the income to pay monthly expenses, and I often can't meet them. I often get assistance from my housemate, mom, and others in expectation that I will receive SSI later. I get by on an $80/month transportation grant from the DOR which is irregular. I didn't receive it this month. This is one of the ramifications of the taxpayers discouraging any forms of "cash" assistance for poor people. 

3) The idea that my problem is "budget management" is laughable. Do you have any idea how much of these bureaucratic workshops people like me have to go through already? This is just "poverty pimping" or giving income to consultants and workshop leaders rather than the people whose problems would be solved if they had an income to budget-manage. 

4) Demanding a notice of eviction is also unfair since many people who are on the edge of losing their housing do not want to notify their landlord of their situation or generate the very piece of documentation their landlord needs to get rid of them in 30 days. Existing programs in Berkeley also use "notice of eviction" as a requirement, and that may be one of the reasons people just fall into homelessness without getting help they might have been eligible for. 

Also, Steve Martinot is right about the problem with reporting income leading to the under-recognition of people who are paying over 80% of their income toward rent. In the past, when I've reported temporary work, the bureaucracy automatically cut off all my services - including Medi-Cal - and it took me two months of re-applications and crazy-long phone calls that can only be conducted during business hours to get it back. That's because any income means benefits may have been "overpaid", and the bureaucracy grinds to a halt while all the adjustments are made. This is why you don't hear much about the type of problems I bring up. They don't want to accidentally trip over some rule that might cause them to lose their benefits. 

In short, the people most likely to be displaced won't be helped by this program, and it would be really irritating for poor people to see City Council making a big deal over their in-roads toward addressing displacement when all they are doing is providing a second bite for people in the layer that is already being helped. 

On that note, City Council doesn't know about these things because the Human Welfare and Community Action Commission doesn't inform you about them. I've complained for years about how this commission doesn't deal enough with poverty issues in Berkeley, how they fail to fill the requirement for Representatives of the Poor, and how the City hasn't been meeting the requirements for the Community Services Block Grant because the poor aren't granted adequate participation. 

I noticed that the HWCAC brought up an agenda item for clarifying the Commissioner Manual for the umpteenth time. If we went back for a few years, I wonder how many policy items addressing the concerns of poor people were brought to City Council by the HWCAC? Because I kept bringing up this issue during campaign season, Councilmembers made campaign promises about putting actual poor people on the HWCAC - yet the commission was regarded with so little importance that when the time came, the same old people were reappointed. 

I came across something interesting in the City Ordinance Section 3.78.010: 

C-1. Four of the nine members of the commission appointed by the council shall be members or officials of business, industry, labor, religious, welfare, education, or major groups and interests in the community, as required by California Government Code Sections 12736(e), 12750(a)(2), and 12751, the language of which is incorporated herein by reference. 

I was wondering who kept track of who the 4 "interests of the community" appointees were. It's not the District 3 representative and Chair Praveen Sood - he's a marketing guy who has never held a job that relates to social issues. Perhaps this is part of the problem with getting the HWCAC to focus on local poverty issues. 

Once the HWCAC is fixed with actual representation of the poor and appointees who know/care something about local poverty issues, then the Anti-Displacement Program should be reviewed by them. It's clear from the criteria of the current Anti-Displacement Program that Councilmembers do not have enough information to successfully address this issue. Since I have lived in month-to-month danger of displacement for around 5 years, seeing this useless "Anti-Displacement Program" was devastating for me. 

Sincerely, 

Elisa Cooper 

Ps. If displaced, I also wouldn't be eligible to apply for 2902 Adeline's "affordable" units. 50% AMI for the "Very Low Income Units" is above what people get for SSI (under $12k/year) and above the State's General Assistance ($636/month - total amount must be used for rent). It was equally distressing to see no one fighting for "Extremely Low Income" units in a rapidly gentrifying area where 20% of the residents live below the poverty level (yes, the poverty level is below 50% AMI).

As progressives have contended, the Berkeley Housing crisis is not about a shortage of housing. Rather the housing crisis is about affordable housing, particularly for residents whose wages are below the poverty level. It is the desperate situation of these low wage individuals and families that the Berkeley City Council is attempting to address. 

In a move in the right direction, the Council voted eight to one on Tuesday to charge developers a substantial fee for each unit -- $34,000 -- unless the developers provide 20 percent of their housing units at below market rate.  

But the gain is a modest one. A very serious problem confronting the City Council is the limits of what a city can do since rent control was abolished by the California legislature in 1995. Unquestionably, decontrol mainly accounts for the incredibly high rents. Even if we accept the US Census underestimated count of the poor in Berkeley, which is over 24,000 --that's too many individuals and families who can be accommodated by the relatively few available below market rate units. A Berkeley City Council member pointed out that the projects which have already been approved will meet only 3 percent of the goal for low income housing.  

Of course the more below market rate units that a developer provides, the greater the number of low income residents that can be accommodated. One advocate urged that the percent of below market rate units should be increased from 20 to 40 percent. Although that's a relatively high figure, it is a mistake to assume that that we cannot do better. Rather than dismissing such called grand ideas, we should raise our expectations. Both the Berkeley City Council and community activists should avoid being trapped by a culture of low expectations. A well organized and vigorous campaign can accomplish much. Providing below market rate housing for only 20 percent of poor residents is not enough. 

Another very serious problem is that most below market rate units are still expensive and unaffordable, particularly for the economically vulnerable. The federal agency, Housing and Urban Department (HUD), mainly determines the rent that poor tenants pay. According to the Agency's arithmetic, rents for tenants defined as poor could be as high as $2,000 per month. Section 8 housing, which subsidizes the rent for poor tenants, limits rents to 30 percent of their income. However, there are too many poor applicants to provide subsidies to a majority of residents. As the writer Steve Martinot mentions in a Berkeley Planet article (6-10-17), many of these tenants who live in below market rate units pay 70 percent or more of their income for rent. With very little money left over, they suffer from hunger and malnutrition. And many of the sick cannot afford medical care. Also, the exorbitant rents have increased homelessness tremendously. 

Although there are serious constraints in what the Berkeley City Council can accomplish, it nevertheless should first make an effort to negotiate with developers for lower rents rather than allowing HUD's formula to serve as the first rather than the very last resort. Not attempting to engage the establishment to provide better terms for low income residents, including those who live on the streets, is tantamount to ignoring their welfare., 

Since the persistence of the housing crisis transcends what the Berkeley City Council can accomplish, we should certainly not blame the progressive majority for what they are unable to achieve. Instead, we must work together with the City Council by demonstrating, marching, lobbying, publicizing, and involving the public to develop at least a statewide strategy to turn things around

Dear Ms. Hogan,

I have been deeply impressed over the years by your concern for prudent and transparent management of the city's finances. In that context I write to draw your attention to a glaring discrepancy between two city departments in spending for a basic necessity: maintenance of clean public restrooms. Both the Parks and Waterfront Department and the Finance Department, independently of each other, hire contractors to clean city restrooms, including restrooms on the waterfront. But the Parks and Waterfront Department spends nearly three times as much per unit per service for restroom maintenance as does the Finance Department, and gets a lower standard of cleanliness for the money. The spending gap between these two city departments over time, if eliminated, would pay for major restroom upgrades in city parks, with money left over.

Let's dive into the numbers. 

(1) What the Parks and Waterfront Department Spends  

The Parks and Waterfront Department signed a maintenance contract starting on October 1, 2014, with United Site Services (USS), a national corporation that specializes in providing portable restroom units for temporary environments. The contract specifies monthly maintenance charges based on the number of services per week. Here are the locations, the number of units, the number of services per week, and the 2014 contract prices per month and per year: 

 

Location	Number of Units   at Location  s	Number of Services   Per Week per Unit	Cost per Unit per Month for Services	Cost per Unit per Month for Location	Cost per Location per Year
Aquatic Park	1	6	$460	$460	$5,520
Cesar Chavez Park	5	6	$460	$2,300	$27,600
Civic Center Park	2	7	$500	$1,000	$12,000
Cragmont Park	1	4	$208	$208	$2,496
Hearst & Second St	2	7	$500	$1,000	$12,000
James Kenney Park	1	7	$500	$500	$6,000
King Park	1	3	$156	$156	$1,872
Ohlone Park	2	7	$500	$1,000	$12,000
Gilman Fields	7	2	$104	$728	$8,736
Totals	22	49		$7,352	$88,224

This table shows that the city has temporary restrooms at nine locations. Four of the locations (Aquatic Park, Cragmont Park, James Kenney Park, and King Park) have only one unit. Three other locations have two units (Civic Center Park, Hearst & Second Street, and Ohlone Park). Cesar Chavez Park has five units, and the Gilman sports fields (in 2014) had seven units. Four of the locations (Civic Center, Hearst & Second, James Kenney, and Ohlone) are scheduled for service every day of the week. Two locations (Aquatic and Cesar Chavez) are set for six days a week, and the remainder get serviced less often. When we multiply the number of units at a location times the number of days they receive service visits, we get the total number of services per week for that location. So, for example, King Park with its one unit three times per week gets three weekly services, while Cesar Chavez Park with five units six times a week counts for thirty service visits per week. Adding up all services for all units gives a total of 106 service visits to all units in all locations per week. Multiplying that weekly total by fifty weeks -- only fifty because of thirteen City holidays -- makes a total of 5,300 service visits each year for all units in all locations. 

 

Attachment I at Page 19 of the contract (Page 15 of the attached PDF) gives flat fee prices as of 2014 for service per unit per month. For service once a week the monthly charge is $52; twice a week is $104; and so on up to seven times a week, which costs $500 per month per unit. The third column of the table reproduces these contract fee amounts for the given frequency of services per month. So, for example, six weekly visits at Aquatic and Cesar Chavez cost $460 per unit per month; three weekly visits to King Park costs $156 per month, and so on. The fifth column multiplies the cost per unit by the number of units at each location. So, at King Park with its one unit, the monthly price remains at $156. But at Cesar Chavez Park, with its five units serviced six times a week, the monthly cost for the location is $2,300 (five times $460). The last column multiplies the monthly cost per location by twelve to get the annual cost. Here the extremes are King Park, with an annual cost of $1,872, and Cesar Chavez Park, where the city spent $27,600 in 2014-15 for temporary restroom maintenance. The total cost for all locations with this price schedule was $88,224. Dividing this annual total by the total number of service visits to all locations -- which we saw above is 5,300 visits -- we get a cost per visit of $16.65 in 2014. 

The 2014 contract allows USS to raise its fees annually with the Consumer Price Index (Exhibit B, paragraph 2, p. 14 of the PDF). By this index, the annual cost increased from $88,224 in 2014 to a current $96,773, which comes to $18.26 per service visit per unit. 

(2) What the Finance Department Spends 

Now let's take a look at how much the Finance Department spends for restroom service. For more than ten years the Finance Department has contracted restroom maintenance work out to Universal Building Services (UBS) Inc., headquartered in Richmond. The current contract began on July 1, 2013 and was set to terminate in 2016, but has been amended and extended. A copy of the original 2013 contract and of the relevant 2016 amendment is attached. It covers janitorial services at more than two dozen city locations, including the mental health buildings, senior centers, community centers, police and fire stations, the planning department and the animal shelter, among others. Fortunately, the documents provide a cost breakout for the Marina restrooms. 

Note that although these restrooms are located on the waterfront, their maintenance is not in the hands of the Parks and Waterfront Department but in the hands of Finance. 

 

Location	Number of Stalls	Services per Week	Total Services/Week at this Location
B&C Docks	8	7	56
D&E Docks	2	7	14
F&G/H&I Docks	2	7	14
J&K Docks	2	7	14
L&M Docks	2	7	14
24 Hour Pier	2	7	14
Totals	20	49	140

The table shows that there are seven restroom buildings around the Marina, not including the Shorebird Nature Center restroom. One of these buildings, at the B&C Docks on the north side, contains eight unisex restroom stalls, each with its own door to the outside, and four of these also have showers. The remainder of the Marina restroom buildings have two stalls each, one for men, one for women. Altogether, these seven buildings contain 20 restroom units, most of which also have showers. The contract calls for all of them to be cleaned seven days a week, without exception. Thus, for example, service for the eight units at the B&C Dock, seven days a week, totals 56 service visits per week. Adding the other units, we get a total of 140 service visits per week to maintain the listed Marina restrooms. Multiplying this by 50 weeks (remembering the 13 holidays) there is a total of 7,000 service visits per year. The contract tells us that in the 2016-2017 period, the fee for this service is $78,072. Dividing by 7,000, we come to a cost of $11.15 per service visit. 

 

This number is not directly comparable with the amount the Parks Department spends to maintain temporary restrooms. There are differences in the scope and the scale of the work. The contract (at p. 26 of the PDF) lists the tasks to be done by the janitorial service at the Marina restrooms on a daily basis: 

 

• All urinals, toilets and lavatories must be thoroughly cleaned with a solution containing a commercial grade, approved disinfectant and sprayed with an approved germicide to kill surface germs.
• All lavatory room floors will be damp mopped with germicidal solution.
• All walls and partitions around sinks, urinals and toilets will be cleaned.
• All mirrors and glass shower doors will be cleaned with an ammoniated glass cleaner.
• All chrome faucets will be polished.
• All waste paper baskets will be emptied, contents disposed of, and plastic liners replaced.
• All paper towel dispensers and soap dispensers will be filled.
• All bathroom and shower walls will be cleaned, disinfected and polished.
• All restroom floors must be thoroughly cleaned with a solution containing a commercial grade approved disinfectant and sprayed with an approved germicide to kill surface germs.

The temporary units, by contrast, have no mirrors or shower doors, no faucets of chrome or otherwise, no sinks, no waste paper baskets, no paper towel dispensers, and it's debatable to what extent their walls and floors, much smaller than those of the permanent restrooms, ever receive this kind of cleaning and disinfecting treatment. The scope of work in the temporary units is much narrower. 

 

The scale of the permanent premises also differs greatly from the temporary units. Fourteen of the Marina restrooms have attached showers. A competing janitorial contractor who bid on this job in 2007 would have charged separately for the restrooms and the showers: $10 for the restrooms, $13 for the showers, per visit. Source. The bid highlights the difference in scale. If we treat the fourteen showers more realistically as roughly equivalent in service effort to restroom units, then the Marina has the equivalent of 34 restroom units, each serviced seven times a week, which makes a total of 238 service visits per week, or 11,900 service visits per year. Dividing the annual cost of $78,072 by 11,900, the cost per unit per service visit is just $6.56. By comparison, as we saw above, the Parks Department spends $18.26 per unit per service visit, almost three times as much as the Finance Department. 

(3) What Accounts for the Maintenance Cost Disparity? 

What accounts for the difference between the cost of servicing temporary units (Parks) and servicing permanent restrooms (Finance)? Both of the corporations involved, Universal Building Services and United Site Services certified that they complied with Berkeley's Living Wage Ordinance and Equal Benefits Ordinance. It's unlikely that the maintenance cost disparity rests on a difference in employee wages. 

A much more plausible explanation emerged for me from watching the two crews at work. I watched a janitorial worker at the north side Marina restrooms. He worked with hand tools such as mops, brooms, brushes and sponges which were stored in the building. For transportation he relied on what looked like his personal vehicle. The city's total capital investment in equipment and supplies for his work was close to zero. 

Compare that to the maintenance man for the temporary units. I watched him pull in at the wheel of a "vactor" truck, a heavy diesel vacuum unit mounted with two tanks, one that holds 1,100 gallons of waste, another for 300 gallons of water, plus a quantity of the "blue juice" whose chemical splashes greet the first users of the day. These trucks cost upward of $250,000 to buy and no doubt a significant sum to keep running. The super-simple, super-cheap fiberglass temporary restroom unit requires a super-sized and super-expensive piece of machinery to service it, not occasionally, but with every visit, every time. When it relies on temporary restroom units, the city outsources -- and pays for -- not only the labor but also the capital investment, many times over. 

Since the year 2000, the city has spent nearly a million and a half dollars to maintain temporary restroom facilities. The following table shows the contract amounts. 

 

 

Year	Contract Amount
2000	$62,500
2001	$62,500
2002	$62,500
2003	$62,500
2004	$60,000
2005	$60,000
2006	$60,000
2007	$60,000
2008	$100,000
2009	$100,000
2010	$100,000
2011	$100,000
2012	$100,000
2013	$105,000
2014	$105,000
2015	$105,000
2016	$105,000
2017	$105,000
Total	$1,515,000

These numbers are ceilings ("Not To Exceed") and the actual amounts paid against the contractor's invoices are about five to ten per cent less, on average. But the table shows only a fraction of the city's historical spending on these devices. The temporary restroom units in Cesar Chavez Park go back 25 years, and some other locations undoubtedly have similar stories. In only one location has the city replaced temporary units with permanent restrooms in this century. That is Aquatic Park, which had eight temporary units in the year 2000, and today has a permanent restroom plus one temporary unit. In two other parks -- Cesar Chavez and Civic Center -- the city has eliminated one of the temporary units, making the remainder take up the load. The temporary units at Hearst and Second Streets and at the Gilman Fields are new additions. In a few locations, the city has slightly bumped up the number of weekly services. Otherwise the picture is one of a long-standing establishment of temporary units deployed for permanent duty, with the resultant high costs for maintenance. 

 

(4) Maintenance Cost Savings Would Cover Capital Expenditures 

As we have seen, janitorial services for permanent restrooms (Finance Department) represent a substantial saving over services for temporary units (Parks Department). If the city's 22 temporary units were permanent units, service costs per visit per unit would drop from the current $18.26 to about $6.56, as we saw above. At the current frequency of services per week, the cost would come to $34,768 per year for all 22 units together, or $1,580 per year per unit. That would be a saving of $62,005 per year on service costs compared to the temporary units. Even if we increased the frequency to seven visits a week, the same as the Marina restrooms today, the cost would be $50,512 per year for all units together, or $2,296 per unit, a saving of $46,261 per year. 

But this arithmetic underestimates the cost gap. In high-use locations like Cesar Chavez Park, Civic Center Park, and Ohlone Park, the city has had to put up two temporary units side by side. This is not because people are standing in line to get in. It's because the tiny holding tanks of the temporary units fill up quickly on a busy day. (See photo gallery, below.) That's not a problem with permanent units that have flush toilets. A single flush-toilet unit can easily replace two or more temporary units at a given location. (At Aquatic Park, the two-sided permanent facility replaced seven temporaries.) Unisex units today are preferred over the gendered units built a generation ago, with a great saving in costs. The 22 temporary units in the nine current locations could be replaced by ten permanent units. The annual maintenance cost for seven-day service would come to $22,960 for all units together, a saving of $73,813 annually. 

But, of course, this arithmetic ignores the capital expenditure involved in building permanent units. In the past, these were formidable, but the Parks Department did not blink. It spent just shy of four million dollars in 2009 putting up the custom-built eight-unit restroom structure near the B and C Docks on the north side of the yacht basin. As this is written, the Parks Department intends to spend $600,000 in grant money to build one new restroom near the Cal Adventures building on the south side of the basin. When it wishes, the Parks Department can summon the resources to construct expensive, showy custom-built facilities for select groups of users. 

In today's market, capital expenditures of this magnitude appear highly questionable, if not scandalous. An internet search readily shows that a number of vendors nationwide offer attractive prefabricated park restrooms for a fraction of those costs. The big disruptive force in today's park restroom market is the Greenflush Restrooms company of Vancouver WA, just across the river from restroom-wise Portland OR, birthplace of the Portland Loo. The firm has pioneered a hybrid technology that combines the user appeal of odor-free flush toilets with the practicality of freedom from sewer hookups at a very aggressive price. Recently installed units in Lathrop and in Pacifica, with flush toilet, urinal, and sink for handwashing, cost in the range of $50,000 to $60,000, installed. Every location in Berkeley that now has temporary units could have permanent flush-toilet restrooms for the price of the Parks Department's one proposed new south side showpiece. 

To be sure, the hybrid technology, with its freedom from the sewer system, also needs to be pumped out. But the holding tanks of these units are vastly larger, and the need for pumping is not daily or weekly or even monthly, but may be as infrequent as twice a year. The unit at a busy dog park in Lathrop went eight months before the vactor truck had to be called. I've talked with Debbie Thornton, Account Manager at United Site Services, the same contractor who now pumps out Berkeley's temporary units, and obtained a quote of just $455 to empty a 1,500 gallon holding tank, a typical size for the Greenflush models. Assuming generously that two pump-outs a year would be required, that would add $910 to the annual maintenance cost per unit. For ten units, $9,100. That would raise the annual maintenance cost for all ten hypothetical units from $22,960 to $32,060 -- still a saving of $64,713 per year over the current temporary unit maintenance expense. At that rate, the city would recover the capital cost of ten permanent Greenflush units in less than ten years. They would pay for themselves, with money left over. 

Conclusion 

Money matters. But upgrading from temporary facilities to permanent flush-toilet restrooms isn't just about saving money. It's about winning park user satisfaction, and it's about serving families, and children, and respecting gender equity. And it's about aesthetics, and about civic pride, and about good government. In the new season of "Orange is the New Black," the women who have seized control of the prison select the worst possible punishment for their hostages: they put them in porta-potties. The Parks Department inflicts that punishment on park visitors every day. This might be excusable if temporary units saved the city money. But, as we have seen, the opposite is the case. 

Institutions, including governments, tend to break up into silos. One department doesn't know what another is doing, even when they offer very similar services. In Berkeley, the Finance Department is on top of its game, providing essential public services at minimal cost. The Parks and Waterfront Department, not. You, as City Auditor, are in a position to overview all city departments, and to make whatever adjustments may be necessary to correct glaring uneconomical disparities. 

 

 

View a gallery of photos related to this document. [Bottom of story.] Click on an image to enlarge. Parental guidance and viewer discretion advised.  

The Trump cabinet has stooped to new lows in pledging their undying loyalty to the “dear leader”. A few examples: Vice-President Mike “serving a president who’s keeping his word to the American people” is “the greatest privilege of my life”. 

Others gushed that his presidency has “thrilled” crime-fighters. 

Rick Perry, the energy secretary, who was unaware that such a department existed lauded: “My hat is off to you!” who earlier in 2015 vehemently criticized Trump as a “cancer on conservatism”. 

Reince Priebus “Oh sire we thank you for the opportunity and the blessing to serve your agenda.” 

Trump reveled in the idolatry and boasted that he was the most “active” and productive president since Franklin D. Roosevelt”. 

Sadly, none of Trump’s sycophant cabinet members dared to voice criticism of his prevarications, flip-flops and policy blunders. In a clear effort to mock the “court jester and proceedings” at the White House, a production of “Julius Caesar” opened in New York in Central Park. The Roman emperor is played by a blond, Trump-like clone in a suit and flaming red tie. The close parallels between the Trump White House and Shakespeare’s tragedies invoked a predictable angry twitter response. 

The craven behavior of Team Trump was a disgusting spectacle which ill-serves the American people but does provide rich material for late night comedians. 

Dear Mayor and City Council,

I will take you at your word when you when you say that you believe that your votes on June 20 were votes in support of police and for protecting the citizens of Berkeley. I understand your logic based on your experiences and understanding of the world. But none of us have all the facts or a deep understanding of history, or know how the present moment will play out. So in the spirit of furthering a dialogue, I ask that you listen carefully to the words of Naomi Klein.  

Editor's Note: The latest issue of the Pepper Spray Times is now available.

You can view it absolutely free of charge by clicking here . You can print it out to give to your friends.

Grace Underpressure has been producing it for many years now, even before the Berkeley Daily Planet started distributing it, most of the time without being paid, and now we'd like you to show your appreciation by using the button below to send her money.

This is a Very Good Deal. Go for it! 

Berkeley’s zoning ordinance is such a badly written mess that very few people read it unless they must, and those who do struggle to understand what it means. We should probably thank former Planning Director Carol Johnson for getting the City Council to hire a consultant to make the ZO at least readable. Making it workable and equitable is a Herculean task but we’re off to a good start. 

At the Planning Commission Meeting of June 21, the consultants, Ben Noble and partners, presented a slide show and brochure outlining their revision plan. If all goes well and the $300,000 budget suffices, they expect to “make the document easier to understand and administer; clarify City zoning rules and procedures; and enhance customer service for applicants and the general public.” 

They hope to reorganize the ZO for logic, modernize the format by adding visual aids, simplify the writing style for clarity, and eliminate conflicts and inconsistencies. Their contract is expected to span the next two years, with recommendations due mid 2018, draft amendments early the next year, and completion in late 2019. 

Parking was presented as an example of a redundancy that is addressed in two sections as well as individual district chapters. Such duplication can be simplified by putting the subject of parking in one chapter. The format of each chapter could be better arranged with tables and graphics, and the text clarified using “everyday language.” They chose another example Section 23B.44.010 Variances, a paragraph comprised of one long obtuse sentence: 

The Board may grant Variances to vary or modify the strict application of any of the regulations or provisions of this Ordinance with reference to the use of property, the height of buildings, the yard setbacks of buildings, the percentage of lot coverage, the lot area requirements, or the parking space requirements of this Ordinance; provided, however, that a use permit, rather than a variance, may be approved to vary or modify the strict application of any of the regulations or provisions of this Ordinance with reference to the yard setbacks of buildings, the percentage of lot coverage, or the parking space requirements when development is proposed on property which is located within thirty feet of an open creek and where varying from or modifying existing regulations is necessary to enable the property owner to comply with BMC Chapter 17.08, Preservation and Restoration of Natural Watercourses. (Ord. 6954-NS § 1 (part), 2006: Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999) 

A comedian could convulse an audience with an inspired reading of such grotesquerie. It’s a good thing that variances are almost never granted; maybe the wording of the section is the reason why. 

In a parallel effort to improve service at the permit center, the Council held a work session June 27 to hear a report, when the issue of the planned revision of the zoning code came up. Councilmember Sophie Hahn, who served on the Zoning Adjustments Board for about seven years, called the ordinance a Frankenstein monster with good bones, but a patchwork of amendments over the years make it unwieldy to apply. She said that law schools offer courses in legal writing to ensure that code is precise and clear, echoing one of Ben Noble’s PowerPoint slides: writing style. 

Design for Detriment  

But jazzing up the zoning code for better comprehension isn’t going to change dem bones or ensure that citizens are going to like what they read. In fact the revision may infuriate homeowners when they understand the outsized allowances because most of the zones permit development that is detrimental to their property. 

Zoning protection depends on where you live. Do you know how your neighborhood is zoned? If not, consult the zoning map linked to “municipal code and zoning ordinance” at the bottom of the list at the left of the City of Berkeley main page and then click on Subtitle 23D: provisions applicable to all residential zones. That will open a list of the zones. Click on your zone and then the button “compile chapter” and then, on the chapter page, click the button “view entire title as a PDF.” Print the PDF to read, which takes time because tracking the references is like a treasure hunt. 

Even if the code were made coherent, its inherent inequities and inadequacies will remain unless we correct the mistakes of the past, which is why I spent two months researching the history of the R-1A. The development standards of the West Berkeley zone where I’ve lived since 1979 are now under scrutiny at the Planning Commission and will be the subject of a public hearing on July 19. The R-1A is the worst written chapter of the zoning ordinance but illustrative of its faults and failures. 

In the course of my research, it become painfully obvious that the zoning ordinance is a political document as well as a planning guide and that the political camps have used the code in a tug-of-war for supremacy. As the majority of the City Council changed over time, amendments and alterations were made that were not fully integrated into the document, both in style and substance. 

Any holistic treatment of the zoning ordinance came to a screeching halt with district elections in 1986, which shifted control of city hall from BCA, gave more power to the hills, and created the conditions for a fractured land-use policy. Rent control and subsidized housing led to district elections, but other momentous planning efforts were under way. In 1986, under Planning Director Marge Macris, the City zoned the waterfront and survived a federal lawsuit, laying the foundation for the Eastshore Park. In the early 1990’s with Gil Kelley at the helm, the West Berkeley Plan and the Bayer Development Agreement were undertaken, creating quite a stir. So in 1991, at the beginning of Loni Hancock’s second term, few people noticed the imposition of uniform building heights. 

The ramifications of this weird event remain at the heart of countless appeals, the lawsuit over 1310 Haskell Street, and the reform effort in the R-1A. At the beginning of 1991 the Planning Commission began to discuss revising the standards for residential additions and held a public hearing in February. But when the recommendation reached the Council, they passed a resolution applied average building heights of 28-35 feet to all the low to medium density residential zones regardless of the existing development patterns and scale. 

Heights of Buildings, average and maximum, are defined in Chapter 23F.04. Maximum is usually the tippy-top of the roof ridge, but the calculation of average height on a slope differs from that of a level lot and changes with roof types. The range of 28-35 feet originated in the hills to accommodate a sloped lot, but when those numbers are applied to the flatlands, a house with an average height of 35 feet can actually rise to 40 feet maximum, shadowing a one-story cottage next door. 

To make matters worse, the Council imposed a new required finding, “…to deny a permit…that otherwise meets all...standards, the Zoning Officer or Zoning Adjustments Board must find it would unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air, or views,” using the troublesome legal concept of the reasonable person standard. 

Recognizing that the application of the new heights might impose detriment to neighbors in a variety of situations, the Council promised to develop guidelines as to what constitutes unreasonable construction. That never happened. 

In other words, the Council deliberately passed potentially detrimental height standards on the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A neighborhoods, laying the groundwork for a two-step approval process that can delay construction of a housing project for over a year while the applicant and neighbors battle over detriment. 

I have heard many times how this process is supposed to work, but it doesn’t. Appeals and remands consume time and money. Such delays are blatantly unfair to both the applicant and the neighbors, who must endure the anger and anxiety that uncertainty produces, and expensive for the City as such prolonged suffering gobbles up hundreds of staff hours. 

Vision and Revision 

The current affordable housing crisis requires a thorough revision of Berkeley’s zoning code because of the activation of the Housing Accountability Act, which limits the ability of a jurisdiction to deny housing projects that comply with local ordinances. That means we should replace sloppy allowances with more precise standards that are balanced and fair to both the applicant and the neighbors and that protect the City from HAA lawsuits. 

Wise old King Solomon had something to say about this situation. “Where there is no vision, the people perish; but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” That’s the King James version of Proverbs 29:18 with its typical snappy alliteration. But my Jewish bible has a more accurate translation, “Where there is no vision, the people cast off restraint….” 

Applying this wisdom to the Berkeley zoning code, we should understand that where there is an imbalance between allowance and restriction, developers will max out the building envelope. And if anybody objects, they will sue under the HAA. That’s why we need to bring this monster to ground. 

 

Toni Mester is a resident of West Berkeley. 

 

I was diagnosed with severe sleep apnea more than ten years ago. I did not comply with doctor's orders to wear a CPAP machine, and I returned the machine. I thought at the time that it was nonsense. The sleep doctor at Doctor's Hospital in the Richmond area were quite upset with me for wasting their efforts.

Then, more recently, I would wake up every morning feeling as though a truck ran over me. This was about seven years ago.

I had a second sleep study done in Concord, and the physician, who I knew and trusted, essentially said that if I didn't use the machine, I was going to die.

Apparently, actor Carrie Fisher died in part due to sleep apnea at age 60. Had I not gone on the machine several years back, it is likely that, by now, I would be deceased.  

This advance in medical science, along with the discovery of psychiatric medications, have allowed me to remain alive so far. Sleep apnea can be caused by weight, by an obstruction in the airway, and can be caused by certain medications. In sleep apnea, the body is deprived of oxygen while you are asleep. This can lead to heart failure and to numerous other ailments. 

When the body detects a deficiency of oxygen, it sends signals to the heart to work harder. The heart can thus sustain damage; it has to work harder and at the same time, it is deprived of enough oxygen. At the same time, the brain is deprived of oxygen, making it harder for a person to wake up. This scenario, in extreme cases, could lead to death. 

Of course, sleep apnea is bad for the brain. 

When I had untreated sleep apnea, I would wake up feeling utterly exhausted, I would feel physically awful, and I would wonder what the hell was wrong with me. I would often fall asleep during the day. 

Sleep apnea is common among older adults, among people on psychiatric medication, and among people who are obese. You get tested for it with a sleep study. Both my father and my maternal uncle slept with a CPAP, and swore by it. A CPAP increases the air pressure going into the airway, making it easier to inflate the lungs. It can help open a constricted airway, and it can help offset the effects of gravity in an obese person.  

The term "CPAP" is an abbreviation for Continuous Positive Airway Pressure. There is also a "BiPAP" which switches to a lower level of air pressure upon exhalation. 

People at risk for sleep apnea also include those with COPD due to smoking. Getting tested and treated (as necessary) for sleep apnea can not only save you from an early death, it can also increase quality of life, since people who treat their apnea feel much better during the day. The brain will work better, and this contributes to mental health, and to being able to perform at an activity, whether this a job, volunteer work, or school. 

The testing entails an overnight stay in a sleep lab, in which electrodes and other test items are put on you, and in which your sleep will be studied to see how well you are breathing, as well as to find out if you are waking up repeatedly due to lack of enough air.  

Sleep apnea can deprive you of REM sleep, and this means you are not getting much benefit from your sleep. 

I find that I am usually able to nap if I am sitting up in a chair. However, when I sleep horizontally, I have to be hooked up to my machine. I don't use the humidifier section of the machine, and I don't use heated tubing. This is a personal preference, and everyone will be different.  

It is important that the individual who is conducting the sleep study is reputable, since a sleep study puts you in a vulnerable position. If something doesn't seem right at the start of your sleep study, you can leave.  

Writing in Politico, Bruce Bartlett complains the Republican Party has lost its way because it has ceased to champion ideas; he says the GOP has become the Party that panders "to the lowest common denominator in American politics." What Bartlett says is true, but the Democratic Party has also lost its way. Not because its ceased to champion ideas but rather because Democrats have forgotten who they are, they've lost touch with their soul. 

Bruce Bartlett is a historian who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. His Politico article () savages Trump: "He has instituted policies so right wing they make Ronald Reagan... look like a liberal Democrat... Trump is what happens when a political party abandons ideas, demonizes intellectuals, degrades politics and simply pursues power for the sake of power." 

Bartlett dates the GOP decline to the 1994 ascension of Newt Gingrich: "In power, Republicans decided they didn't need any more research or analysis; they had their agenda, and just needed to get it extended." But there's another equally viable explanation: Republicans came under the control of a small number of billionaire conservatives, such as Charles and David Koch and Robert Mercer. After Gingrich came to power, new conservative initiatives originated not from GOP congress members but instead from conservative think tanks (such as the American Legislative Exchange Council [ALEC]) funded by the billionaires. 

Over the course of two decades, the Republican Party became the Oligarchy Party. It didn't abandon ideas but rather turned the conservative intellectual process over to a small number of billionaires. Republican congress members became tools of the oligarchs. Inevitably, this produced the situation where Donald Trump cut his biggest deal; Donald became President of the United States after agreeing to let the oligarchs guide his domestic and foreign policy after accepting millions in financial support. 

Democrats have not responded effectively to this change. 

The rise of the oligarchs has had two direct impacts on the American political process: first, it has savagely increased the impact of big money. Elected officials now have to spend a huge percentage of their time raising money for the next election. Over time this has vastly increased the impact of big donors and lobbyists. The Republican Party is now run by oligarchs but, to a worrisome extent, the Democratic Party is also influenced by big money. 

When Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren talk about the political system being "broken" or "rigged" this is what they are talking about. Wealthy Americans have too much influence in the political process. Democrats acknowledge this but they haven't done anything about it. 

The second impact of the rise of the oligarchs has been the increase of partisanship in American politics -- the death of "comity." The current debate about "Trumpcare" is emblematic of this situation: in 2009, when the Affordable Care Act was being discussed, Democrats had lengthy discussions with Republicans and incorporated many of their ideas in the legislation (even though most Republicans ended up not voting for the Affordable Care Act). In 2017, when Trumpcare was being discussed, Republican Senators made no effort to consult Democrats. 

There's considerable research () that indicates voters in the last election voted more because of partisan sentiments than because of ideas discussed by the candidates. Trump prevailed because he motivated his base with "white male identity politics." Trump prevailed because he was perceived as an outsider who could "shake up the system." (He's definitely done that.) 

Even though Hillary Clinton was widely believed to be the most qualified candidate to ever run for President, she wasn't popular. Voters didn't have the visceral sense of attachment to her that eight years before they had had with Barack Obama. There are a lot of reasons why voters didn't like Hillary: the fact that she is a woman; her reputation as an intellectual; the email scandal; and on and on. But if we compare Clinton in 2016 to Obama in 2008, there's one word that jumps out: soul. Obama had soul and Clinton didn't. 

in 2008, millions of voters believed that Obama would transform the system. (Remember "the audacity of hope"?) In 2016 few voters believed that of Clinton. (Trump supporters believe he would blow up the system.) Obama had soul and Clinton never did. 

That was a problem for Clinton in 2016 and a continuing problem for Democrats. Voters don't see much difference between the two Parties. If you ask a typical American, "In the difficult days ahead, which Party has got your back?" They'll probably answer, "Neither. Politicians are only in it for themselves." 

At the moment, the most popular US politician is Bernie Sanders who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. He's a Socialist who runs as an Independent. 

But it's not his Party affiliation that generates Bernie support, it's his authenticity. Bernie has gained respect by telling it like it is. He recognizes the system is broken and the oligarchs are winning. He's willing to stand up and tell the unvarnished truth. Bernie has soul. 

Not so long ago, Democrats distinguished themselves as "the Party with a soul." That's what they need to do now. Democrats need to follow Bernie Sanders. 

---