Mayor Bates Slights the Residents Around Ashby Bart

In November of 2005, Mayor Tom Bates and Councilmember Max Anderson released a statement outlining their intentions behind, and ways to proceed with, applying for a grant from CalTrans to subsidize the planning of their latest development project. The target: the west parking lot at the Ashby BART station.

The proposal was for a multi-story complex with commercial space on the ground level, and at least 300 units of housing built above. The housing of course being “affordable”—a familiar refrain from the Mayor. The development would, according to the letter, efface the area of the blight rendered upon it from the sunken parking lots above the BART station. The letter also said “We hope and expect that planning for this site will be done carefully and with full community engagement.”

There were many inaccuracies, contradictions, and conflicts of interest in all dimensions of Mayor Bates’ efforts to make this development a reality. As early as December 13, 2005, The Daily Planet reported that “Transit villages—developments at transit hubs—are the creation of Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates, created in Assembly Bill 3152, drafted during his 1994 term in the state Legislature,” and that this legislation would “[upzone] the surrounding area, extending no less than a quarter-mile from the project’s boundary, allowing for greater density for low- and moderate-income housing projects.” Raising additional issues of conflicts of interest, “New legislation by [Mayor Bates’] spouse, Assemblymember Loni Hancock [see AB 691], which takes effect Jan. 1, will allow a city or county to use an existing specific development plan to serve as a plan for a transit village—in the case of the proposed development at the Ashby BART Station, the existing South Shattuck plan may qualify.” But perhaps more telling about the Mayor’s and Max Anderson’s development plans that would proceed with “full community engagement,” was that the development plan was not born of any communal volition at all. In fact, many residents who would be affected by the proposed “Transit Village” did not even hear about it until five months after the Mayor made his grant proposal to CalTrans.

But, for those who kept a watchful eye on the City Council, the alarms had been sounded. Activists Robert Lauriston (who found a number of discrepancies in the grant proposal) and Jackie DeBose, of Neighbors of Ashby BART, were outspoken against the project from early on. In the previously cited Planet article, DeBose expressed unease over the lack of community input before the grant application was submitted. Steve Wollmer of PlanBerkeley.org also expressed concern stating that “a transit village development can blow away existing zoning within that area, leading to even greater density.”

One of Mayor Bates’ expressed intentions, aside from providing ‘affordable’ housing to low-income families or city employees, was to raise the density of the area to take full advantage of the already established public transit. As noted by the Neighbors of Ashby BART, the density of the area surrounding Ashby BART already “exceeds the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s density target of 3,850 dwelling units” in neighborhoods surrounding transit stations. As Mayor Bates is a commissioner of the MTC, he surely knows this. While finding ways to encourage the existing population to ride public transit is difficult, and arguably necessary, filling at least 300 new units with new residents is much more convenient. And politically, it can achieve the same goal, as it is motivated ostensibly for environmentally friendly reasons, with of course, the added benefits of providing city hall with revenue, and cash for developers, at the expense of Federal and State coffers.

On January 14, 2006, 400 neighbors of the Ashby BART met at the South Berkeley Senior Center to discuss the proposed development, and by the end, 220 had signed a petition to reject the CalTrans grant application. Those who spoke were greatly opposed the Ashby BART west lot development as proposed and, among other things, referred to the affair as a “back-room deal;” an attempt at “gentrification;” a betrayal by Max Anderson. Letter carrier, Martin Vargas, declared “Tom Bates and Loni [Hancock] want to demolish every historical landmark we have in South Berkeley.” Concerns over the displacement of the Berkeley Flee Market were also raised.

The city held a public meeting on February 11, 2007, giving only four day’s notice, with no residents or community organizations being notified directly, said South Berkeley resident, Rosemary Hyde, in her Commentary article in the Planet. Hyde pointed out a familiar trait in Mayor Bates’ proposal—namely, his contemptuous attitude toward his audience by denying them evidence to back up his statements. Undercutting one of Mayor Bates’ prime rationales for building a development on top of a transit center—that it will increase BART ridership—she points to data that shows “that fewer than 10 percent of residents in transit developments across the country actually use transit. Also the feasibility studies make it clear that this project cannot provide affordable housing and still be financially feasible. The problem and the proposed solution do not match.”

While Mayor Bates feigned sorrow for the “displaced residents” and the “dead zone” that now exists after constructing the Ashby BART station in the 1960s, his solution for remediation of this great injustice is to build ‘mixed-use’ commercial and residential development. But why ‘mixed-use’ asked many citizens of the neighborhood?

As was made clear by one resident, Kenoli Oleari, in her March 31, 2006 Commentary piece for the Daily Planet, many citizens did in fact want a development over the parking lot; “a piazza-like structure with retail, outdoor eating and art,” adding that housing only be added “IF [it] can be fit into that format.” It would seem, then, that had there been any democratic process going on in the Mayor’s office, that a compromise could easily be reached. After all, half of the Mayor’s proposal was in agreement with the public—that there be a development with the all-important qualification that it not be high-density; the results of which could lead to upzoning of the surrounding area, greater traffic problems, and disruption of the Flea Market—a now Berkeley institution, that, 31 years ago, rose from the “dead zone” that Mayor Bates so heartily laments.

Government officials who face overwhelming public opposition have roughly three options at their disposal. If they concern themselves with the democratic process, and therefore regard themselves as servants of the public, and not Lords who rule by fiat, they will of course heed to the will of the people. The second option is to make a compromise, rendering a decision that’s somewhere in the realm between overwhelming public opinion, and, in this particular case, the Mayor, a Councilmember, and handful of hungry developers. The third option—the one chosen by Mayor Bates—is to manufacture a façade of public participation, while proceeding to do whatever he intended to do before confronting public opposition.

This is where Ed Church and the South Berkeley Neighborhood Development Corporation (SBNDC) enter into the story. Knowing full well the controversial nature of his grant proposal, Mayor Bates assigned the SBNDC with the duty of creating a task force to lead the project, to appoint ‘community members’ to its ranks to develop a “shared vision” for the Ashby project.

As stated before, the SBNDC Ashby BART Task Force was never designed to increase public participation and create a more transparent system; its purpose was to serve as a buffer between the Mayor and a public who never wanted another bureaucratic body to negotiate with in the first place. Now, instead of lobbying the Mayor and Anderson directly, the public would have to deal with a more diffuse body of individuals who were selected in a non-transparent fashion. As Robert Lauriston (Neighbors of Ashby BART) discovered in April of 2006, “The SBNDC has sublet its Adeline Street office and has no staff. It does have a phone number with an answering machine, and an e-mail account, but no one has returned my messages asking how to join, where I can see the minutes, time and place of the next board meeting, and so on.”

When in late May of 2006, after CalTrans rejected the $120,000 grant proposal, Mayor Bates cynically called it “a blessing in disguise… Obviously, we would’ve been pleased to get the money, but this gives us a way to come back to the community in a way that everyone’s comfortable with.”

It was no blessing, however; it was merely a decision that CalTrans made based on facts that seemed to be evident to most everyone outside of Mayor Bates’ circle.

"Caltrans spokesman David Anderson said the agency rejected the city’s
application for a Community-Based Transportation Planning Grant
'because the application received a low score.'
Applications were judged on their ability to fulfill the agency’s seven criteria, including:
• Support of livable community concepts.
• The ability to address a deficiency, conflict or opportunity in coordinating land use and transportation.
• Relevance to a study where considerable community benefit would come from addressing a deficiency in balanced multi-mode transit planning.
• Leveraging resources for use in future developments.
• Support for increased residential development or rehabilitation, including revitalization of an area.
• The presence of synergistic effects that would lead to other benefits.
• Innovation combined with an emphasis on community-based grassroots involvement.”

This is not the last word on the matter, however, as Mayor Bates is still pushing for a development on the Ashby BART lots.

Development & Density

Commentary: The Facts About Density And DevelopmentNeil Mayer, Berkeley Daily Planet, Page 7, 10/23/2007
It’s clearly battle time over the shape of Berkeley, most imminently over downtown’s height limits, with more battles to follow. Let’s arm ourselves for the upcoming showdown on density, development, and downtown with some basic facts. Where does Berkeley stand, in the spectrum of communities, in terms of people crowding into space? Happily, we can easily access reliable and consistent data, from a website called DataPlace created by mortgage giant Fannie Mae’s philanthropic arm, using data from the U.S. Census. DataPlace compiles population density data (residents per square mile) for every settlement--from small towns to big cities--in the nation. And it allows site visitors to request information about the ranking of a given city against others in the state or nation, organized if you wish by the size of communities.

Here is the Berkeley story in a nutshell. We are already one of the most crowded communities in the country, large or small. And our few competitors in California are hardly places we want to imitate. The specifics: There are 25,150 "places" in the entire country. Berkeley ranks 172nd of all of them in density, at 9,823 people per square mile (in year 2000)--102,743 people living in just under 10.5 square miles. That means we are denser than 99.3 percent of all other places in the United States. That was our position already at the start of the decade, before the recent spurt in construction in the city. Berkeley’s population has increased by 3,500 between 2000 and 2006, according to the Census Bureau’s new American Community Survey. That pushes our density up another 335 people per square mile, to 10,158. Ah, you say, but Berkeley is a fairly large urban place in the midst of a major metropolis, expected to be denser than villages and towns. OK, let’s look at the 245 U.S. cities with 100,000 residents or more. Berkeley is after all among the very smallest of those. Our city ranked 20th in density among those major communities, ahead of 92 percent of the big cities including places such as Washington, D.C. and next-door neighbor Oakland.

Oakland in particular had, amazingly, less than one third of Berkeley’s density in 2000. Forget about Jerry Brown and his 10K plan. Oakland could add 150,000 residents tomorrow and not reach Berkeley’s density level. Let’s then turn to our home state of California exclusively. Here Berkeley ranks eighth in density among all of the state’s communities of any size. Who are the seven "ahead" of us? At the front, East Los Angeles--a prototype for urban ills of every type, where low-income people, often recent immigrants, crowd multiple families into a single home or apartment in order to afford the rent. Second, Inglewood, another Los Angeles-area concentration of poor people--this time African Americans--rivaling in social problems largely Hispanic East L.A. What is notable and clear is that, in such places, higher densities are forced on people by their lack of resources and perhaps other factors including discrimination, not selected deliberately as matters of preferred municipal policy.

Third in the density line, El Monte, East L.A.’s near neighbor. Fourth, Santa Ana, where 4.6 people are crowded into each housing unit, 75 percent more than in New York City or L.A. Next, Daly City--literally the living model for Malvina Reynolds’ song about "Little Boxes Made of Ticky Tacky." Then Norwalk, the final ending place for three of the L.A. region’s busiest freeways. And seventh, San Francisco, where, if I may shift to a less scientific mode, we see a jewel whose treasured contours and bay and coastal vistas are being obliterated by Rincon Towers and more, where working families and African-American communities and households with children are disappearing in a sea of gentrification, and all of BART and Muni together can’t leave a parking space available or a moment between one 24-hour "rush hour" and the next. Are these the seven "models" we hope to "catch" by building more and higher? We are already a high-density city.

What are we to gain from further density, when the competition looks so far from attractive? Apparently not what we’ve been promised. Proponents of more building say it’ll keep families in town. The facts: From 2000 to 2006 alone, in a period of booming housing construction, the number of Berkeley households with children under 18 fell by one seventh. Or, say pro-development folks, we’ll keep housing cost from skyrocketing. Nope: In the same six years median house prices nearly doubled, and rents--partly protected by rent control for continuing tenants--rose 38 percent. That rent increase was nearly half again faster than the average for the rest of the (non-controlled) country. Residents of more modest means might be retained, as part of our treasured diversity? Unh, uh. Family income in Berkeley, which exceeded the national median by 40 percent in 2000, was instead 50 percent higher than national levels by 2006, at $87,000. Our African-American population might hold on? Sorry. African Americans were nearly 14 percent of Berkeley’s 2000 population and down to less than 10 percent by 2006. Pounding away on Berkeley’s limited remaining living space is not going to change a housing submarket set in a burgeoning region 60 times its size. So we have to ask, for what reason are we to be headed toward more development and seemingly away from our values?

We run the risk of ruining our community, where the wisdom of citizens’ commitment to resident diversity, historic preservation, human scale, local independent entrepreneurship, and care for all elements of the environment and open space have allowed us to accommodate richness of humanity, building, and space, at already high densities. Push beyond, where the downtown developers and pro-development folks want to take us, and we risk despoiling our own community. For society at large, we risk proving that density, rather than a part of the solution to global warming they want to pursue, is, as so many already fear, a path to be avoided. Let’s save the limited space we have left for dealing directly with our needs: for affordable housing, places for our kids and ourselves to play and learn, models of architectural mastery new and old, green commerce and innovation--none of which we can find trickling down from new masses of high end condos. Greater density does make sense in some places. How about if Berkeley lets Orinda, or for that matter Oakland, start catching up and husbands its own "space" for our top priorities?

Neil S. Mayer was the founding director of Berkeley’s Office of Economic Development.

Mayor Bates Reluctantly Accepts the Primacy of People over the BRT, A.C. Transit, and the Procuring of Federal Monies

City Council Meeting - 10.23.2007 Video here

01:07:45 - Mayor Bates: That concludes the public comment on this item. I want to say that – I had the first item and I did have an item going to the Transportation Commission and then going to the Planning Commission, and I did feel at that time and I still feel the Planning Commission is an important body, but I did feel that also, at the same time, we shouldn’t ignore the role of the Transportation Commission. The compromise that’s been worked out I am going to support for a couple reasons. First reason is they will consult and be involved with the decision. The Planning Commission is going to, by the nature of the way the item is put forward, will consult with the transportation commission. And the other part of it is, you know, we need to move on. We need to get a decision made about this particular process. And so I think that what we have done is collapse it enough that we realistically can get a decision made by March of next year [2008], because A.C. Transit’s sitting there hoping to find out what the route is that we’re going to suggest to them. And also Oakland and also San Leandro. So while we’re fiddling around, San Francisco and other parts of the bay area are moving ahead quite rapidly. So we could find ourselves after a protracted, long, debate knock down drag out for the route, and by the time we do it, the money is not there to even do anything. So if we’re serious about it, we have to get on with it and I think it’s a fair compromise and I am going to support it even though I initially supported transportation first.

Top Berkeley Developments in '06

By Richard Brenneman (01-05-07) Daily Planet

Berkeley developers clocked up big wins in 2006, defeating a ballot measure designed to save Berkeley’s Landmark Preser-vation Ordinance and winning approval of projects destined to change the city’s face.

The Zoning Adjustments Board—which approves permits—ended the year with preliminary approvals for the highly contested project dubbed the Trader Joe’s building, a five-story condo project at 2701 Shattuck Ave., the new West Berkeley bus maintenance facility for the Berkeley Unified School District and the demolition of the Drayage, once a thriving if illegal live/work center for innovative West Berkeley artists...

Read more.

Warm Pools

Berkeley Daily Planet Letters to the Editor 11.20.2007

warm poolsEditors, Daily Planet:Master Bates’ latest public display of moral fecal matter re: his refusal to let disabled and senior users of the warm pool speak early in the agenda is yet another disclosure of what the man’s all about.

His manic emphasis on the city’s green proposals reveals still another pattern as well. Democratic Party (read DLC) strategy for the ’08 elections is to brand themselves as environmental leaders and throw a few eco-bones to the faithful who, apparently, can’t think of who else to vote for.

The trade-off for the eco-bones will be DP support for reconfiguring the Middle East under various spins; growing income disparities that won’t bring forth legislative calls for progressive tax legislation; loss of single payer health care; the continued herding of minority youth into the prison system. Indeed, our very own Loni Hancock voted for the last round of prison construction funding in Sept. But maybe we’ll all have solar panels.

The solutions are out there. One tiny example: Berkeley could have installed portable toilets for the homeless and others who need them years ago. But with a smiley green face, the Democrat political class will do what they can to maintain the status quo. To deeply challenge it would mean losing their jobs.

Maris Arnold

---

Related Entries:
Warm Water Pool Ignored by Council and Sc. Bd

Mayor Berated For Refusal to Let Disabled Speak Early at Council Meeting

Summary of the Daily Planet article titled “Mayor berated For Refusal to Let Disabled Speak Early at Council Meeting.”

In a November 6, 2007 City Council meeting, “Mayor Tom Bates refused a request by Councilmember Dona Spring to allow the issue of the warm pool, a swimming pool heated especially for the needs of frail seniors and disabled people, to be heard early in the evening.

“’ There are a lot of elderly and disabled folks here to talk about the warm water pool. Could we take that up as the first item so that they can make their comments and then go home?’ Spring asked the mayor, explaining, ‘They’ve got rides waiting for them?’”

But Mayor Bates refused to allow the people to speak early. Bates assured Spring that the item “should be [heard] relatively soon.” After three hours, the warm water pool was addressed. By this time, “at least five people who wanted to address the council had left the meeting, according to Joann Cook, who co-chairs One Warm Pool, the group advocating for the facility.

“’[Bates] was so disrespectful,’ Cook told the Planet on Friday, stating further that she had noted the time the mayor used for his ‘pet’ solar-financing issue. “He boasted about his idea for 37 minutes,” she said.”

Mayor Bates Chides Citizens Opposed to New Wright's Garage Development

More instances of not listening to people. Highlights from 6/19/2007 City Council Meeting. Action Calendar Item #8. ZAB Appeal: 2629-2635 Ashby Ave – Wright’s Garage:

Concerned citizens of the Elmwood marched to the podium, one after another, voicing their disapproval of the Zoning Adjustment Board’s decision to allow a bar where Wright’s Garage used to be—now adjacent to a residence.

The citizens gave thoughtful arguments, in one instance bringing up a chart showing just how glaring the differences are between Shin Hua, a restaurant that serves alcohol in the vicinity, and the proposed bar (See video 2hr37min). The poster showed: 50% of gross sales in alcohol sales compared with 15% at Shin Hua. The hours of the proposed restaurant will be midnight. Shin Hua is 10PM

2:38.30 in June 22 2007 meeting.
Mayor Bates, asked the group of concerned residents whether there were more speakers. When the next speaker came to the podium, Mayor Bates chided the crowd by saying “This is like a hearing we’re having right now.” This was as if to say, Look at how much time I’m giving you to speak; what grounds do you have to demand a public hearing?


2:41 It’s About The Law A passionate, reasoned appeal from Richard Stone.
Mr. Mayor, My name is Richard Stone, I’ve been a resident of the Elmwood for 24 years. I would like to introduce you to a factor that seems to be embarrassingly missing in action in these deliberations: and that’s the law. The zoning ordinance has a specific chunk of regulations dealing with the Elmwood commercial district. The purposes include maintaining scale and balance to “compatibly serve the everyday needs of surrounding neighborhoods.” Having establishments serving the surrounding neighborhoods. Preventing development, which exceeds the amount and intensity of use that is compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. And finally, limiting the space occupied by businesses that generate high traffic and or parking demands. Those are some of the purposes of the ordinance, the law, the city of Berkeley has to protect the Elmwood. To make a finding, to move this thing forward, ZAB was supposed to find that the project “will not generate traffic and parking demand beyond the capacity of the commercial district or significantly increase impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods.” To move this bar out of the exception, an affirmative finding must have been made that it would positively enhance these purposes of the district as evidenced by neighborhood resident and merchant support. That doesn’t exist. The finding here are deficient, because they do not implement the purposes. These aren’t theories; this is law.
I would point out that it appears to be an abdication of responsibility who would impose a parking condition that say “Do what you can. Do what you can, and good luck.”

2:46
One resident said the council was shirking its responsibility not dealing with the public in a public hearing and deferring to the ZAB, an appointed body.

2:48 Mayor Bates Thinks This City Council Meeting is an Ample Public Hearing
Mayor Bates dismissed the need for a Public Hearing saying that tonight had been a one sided hearing.

2:57 Councilmember Worthington Speaks Some Sense
Worthington: When you have an overwhelming number of residents and merchants coming to the City Council and telling us to follow our own laws, the City Council should listen.
I implore our council members to keep an open mind and think about keeping some room for a compromise here.


3:00-
MayorBates: I am not going to have a public hearing. What was the difference between today and a public hearing?

3:00
Anderson: There’s more wrong with this than the parking.


3:06
After the motion for a public hearing was voted down, Worthington assured the attendees that it would appear on the agenda next week. To this, Mayor Bates said “It is?” He expressed dismay, and remained unresponsive.

“Can we get a definitive statement that this will appear on next week’s agenda?” Worthington asked a second time. He then had to remind Mayor Bates that this was in fact standard operating procedure.

Mayor Bates finally conceded, “We’ll put it on as the last item of the agenda.”

As angered residents moved out of the room, Bates, with a tinge of exasperation said, “Ok thank you, thank you very much…. Nothing’s gonna change, folks.”