Columns

Thankfully, some city meetings were canceled this week so the impeachment trial could take center stage during the day and space was left for the evening rehash.

With only four meetings of significant note and a need for shifting your attention, this Activist’s Diary starts with where you can have the most impact to shape an ordinance or influence a decision, City Council Policy Committees.

It was December 11, 2018 when City Council voted to create six standing Council Committees. After two years with this new arrangement, it still feels like people think the place to comment to influence a decision is at the regular Council meeting. Council meetings are the fallback position when we lose in committee or an item skates through to the regular meeting agenda without going through committee.

The six committees are: 1) Agenda & Rules Policy Committee, 2) Budget & Finance Policy Committee, 3) Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Policy Committee, 4) Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Policy Committee, 5) Land Use, Housing & Economic Development Policy Committee and 6) Public Safety Policy Committee https://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil/.

These meetings are during the daytime, which makes it harder for people with daytime jobs and responsibilities to attend. This is where neighborhood and community groups can coordinate input by sending representatives. 

We can’t forget that courage from elected officials can be lacking even here in Berkeley. It is important that our voices are heard and items don’t just slide by. We end up with better results when we participate, even when we lose. 

Monday afternoon, February 8th in the Agenda Committee, Councilmember Droste’s item Resolution to End Exclusionary Zoning got a pass and it was placed as action item 29 in the February 23rd City Council regular meeting agenda. Candace Hyde-Wang, in a letter to Council, described this item as follows: “The title of the resolution is sadly deceptive. It frames discriminatory housing history in a way that is inaccurate and unproductive. It dresses itself up as a racial equity plan when it actually serves to further wealthy real estate and tech interests. When addressing housing, we need to look carefully and be guided by facts, not false flags.” Co-sponsors of this “false flag” are Councilmembers Taplin, Bartlett and Robinson. 

You can read her full letter in this issue. Berkeley Neighborhood Council will be holding a special meeting February 20 on just this item. https://berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com/ 

The other Droste real estate item, Quadplex Zoning, will be reviewed at the Council Land Use Committee on Thursday morning February 18th at 10:30. This ordinance would bypass Zoning Adjustment Board (ZAB) review of applications for variances to established zoning except in a few defined cases. 

I have attended enough ZAB meetings to know that better projects are possible when there is review and input. And, not an insignificant amount of the time that nudging for better projects, better planning comes from the community. 

The Tuesday evening City Council meeting outcome (just like the impeachment trial which consumed most of my week and probably yours too) was mostly predictable. Sophie Hahn engaged in her usual tactic when there is an item at the end of the agenda that Council wants to avoid. She dawdled away chunks of time for the “perfect wording” of the amendment to the Home Occupations ordinance, the item that preceded the controversial last item on the agenda, the Vote of No Confidence in the Police Chief. 

I counted thirty-six speakers including myself plus emails who supported the vote of no confidence. Only four from the community supported Police Chief Greenwood. The comments came from people who had observed and experienced racial profiling, people who were part of the Mayor’s Impartial Policing Working Group and had experienced upfront Chief Greenwood’s resistance to change. Chief Greenwood was described as corrosive, disconnected from his progressive self-image and in opposition to every attempt at change. His gross overrun of the Department budget was cited by many. Speakers repeatedly said that Chief Greenwood lacks the willingness to productively participate in the community process to re-imagine policing in Berkeley. Delays in reporting and lack of follow-through were also noted, but racial profiling and disparate treatment of people of color was the single thread through statement after statement. The Community Policing Equity Report provides confirmation to disparate treatment. 

George Lippman laid the problem in the lap of the City Manager. “…The City Manager manages the Police Department. She or this office must be held accountable for the racially discriminatory behavior of the Police Department…” In the end, as could be predicted, Mayor Arreguin, Councilmembers Taplin, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, and Hahn voted to take no action on the vote of No Confidence. A few cited a technicality: that they didn’t have the authority to make such a vote. Councilmembers Bartlett and Harrison abstained. Kesarwani did not respond and was noted as absent. 

This was City of Berkeley business, but as I reflect on the week, I can’t help but see the parallels between what happened Saturday in the impeachment trial and City Council’s not holding City management accountable. Councilmember Wengraf said she was hopeful. I’m hopeful someone gets a wake-up call to be accountable, change or leave. 

Wednesday evening the Parks and Waterfront Commission was my third and final stop in an evening of zooming. The Disability Commission lacked a quorum, the Homeless Commission barely held my attention and Parks was still in session in the middle of reviewing the plans for 600 Addison when I tuned in. 600 Addison is a commercial building project with a west facing glass façade with a spectacular view of the Bay. Normally a project does not come to the Parks and Waterfront Commission, but this project abuts Aquatic Park and plans to use Bolivar Drive as a shuttle thoroughfare. It was Maria Landoni who noted that Bolivar Drive is in Aquatic Park. 

It was in a review of the project description after the meeting where I found that the developer’s statement that a planned shuttle would run every 15 minutes during commuter hours, which really means every 15 minutes from 6 am – 10 am and 3 pm – 7 pm: eight hours of using a park road as a shuttle thoroughfare. I’ve been following this project and there have been improvements. More trees are being saved and planted. Bird safe glass is being considered, but a commitment is sadly missing. Parking has been reduced from 1044 spaces to 924 which is still obscene in a city that eliminated parking minimums and established parking maximums in new residential projects just a few weeks ago. 

While the Parks and Waterfront Commission declined to take a vote, when asked for a recommendation, the big question is why a commercial project should be allowed to make a park road on park property its transit corridor for its shuttle. 

Why has no one insisted that the building be designed for the shuttle to circulate on the east side, away from the park where families bicycle, people stroll and birds frolic in the water? 

Surely there is a way to decrease or rearrange parking (944 spaces), entrance and exit traffic patterns to accommodate a shuttle. 

There was one other item at the Parks and Waterfront Commission worth attention, the proposal for a ferry and pier. I couldn't make the numbers add up. Someone at a ferry/pier meeting called a ferry a boutique service. It is a poor contender as efficient transportation. 

A BART car can hold 200 passengers and a 10 car train can transport 2000 people in one trip. A 433 passenger ferry if used as a commuter service would at a minimum double travel time. Projections are that if implemented by 2035 the ridership could be up to 795 unique persons per day. The whole proposal needs a thorough honest economic evaluation and an environmental impact report. 

The last meeting of the week worth noting was the McGee Spaulding Neighbors in Action (MSNIA) and the key agenda item was the presentation on TOPA, Tenants Opportunity to Purchase Act. This is a very interesting ordinance proposal and there are still parts to be worked out, but it could be very beneficial to tenants and fair to building owners. TOPA would require that before an apartment building can be sold, it has to first be offered to the tenants for purchase. This is an important measure to track and it certainly sparked my interest, turning me from lukewarm to a cautious supporter. If you can make it, TOPA is on the Land Use Committee Agenda for this coming Thursday, February 18. Councilmember Harrison organized the MSNIA presentation. 

I’ve been finishing my Activist’s Diary with what I’m reading. I needed just one more hour to finish Braiding Sweetgrass, but my time ran out with the San Francisco library and I am back on the waiting list. There is good reason why it is on the best seller list. I finished RUST a Memoir of Steel and Grit. I have to thank book club for this choice. It’s a great book available from our Berkeley Library. RUST is about Cleveland, the steel mill, work, church, relationships, mental illness and politics. Next up is The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.