Newsletters

Numerous Industrial/Artisan/Arts Businesses, Hundreds of Jobs At Risk

Tue, 7 May 2013 21:06:50 -0700

Proposal Violates General Plan, W. Berkeley Plan, Common Sense
Proposal would change industrial zoning (Mixed Use Light Industrial–MULI) on Gilman and large parts of surrounding blocks from S. Pablo to 6th St. to Retail (Commercial West Berkeley – CW).
Tuesday, May 7, 7pm, City Council Chambers, 134 MLK. Way

*************

Councilmember Maio Pulls Item From Consent, Now Set For Discussion, Possible Action On May 7th. Still No Notification To Affected Businesses and Residents: At the April 30th council meeting, Councilmember Linda Maio pulled the Gilman rezoning proposal from the consent calendar, setting it for Action Calendar discussion at the Council’s May 7th meeting. The attempt by Mayor Bates to move such an important proposal from the Consent Calendar to the Planning Commission without A.) consulting with businesses and residents critically affected, and B.) having a substantive discussion at the Council level, evinces the same lack of respect for the industrial & arts business community that marked the troubled West Berkeley Project.

While WEBAIC appreciates Councilmember Maio’s move to at least discuss the item next week, the process remains seriously flawed due to the lack of any outreach or notification to the affected communities that this discussion of their future will be taking place. For this reason it is important that the industrial, artisan, and surrounding residential community come out on Tuesday to demonstrate the shortsightedness and destructive nature of this proposal.

The rezoning proposal states its purpose: “To offset ongoing and projected budget deficits, the City of Berkeley can increase revenue by expanding retail uses where appropriate.” Not stated is that for this “vision” to be realized, industrial & arts/artisan businesses and jobs must be forced out to accommodate “expanding retail uses”.

In plain language, changing the zoning along the Gilman corridor will:
1.) Force industrial and arts/artisan businesses and jobs out by requiring them to compete for space with retail stores that can pay significantly more per square foot for space. This is the proposal’s’ acknowledged rationale, with its expectation of an influx of retail locating in spaces now available to and occupied by industry and arts. Displacement is the proposal’s intended methodology of (hypothetical) revenue creation.
2.) Allow residential uses (under CW zoning) that pay even more for land/space than retail and create substantial conflicts with industry and arts that the WB Plan and General Plan specifically seek to avoid by rightly prohibiting them from the industrial zones.
3.) Further exacerbate traffic, degrading the already dangerously dysfunctional Gilman interchange. Not only has the City not notified businesses in the area of its intentions, it hasn’t contacted abutting residential neighborhoods to ascertain their opinions on greatly expanding retail and traffic in their neighborhoods.
4.) Incentivize the extension of retail zoning to the freeway, encouraging the displacement of scores of business and hundreds more jobs. This idea was already previously proposed in 2004 but was stopped by an outpouring of opposition from businesses.
5.) Create unnecessary competition for struggling Downtown and Telegraph commercial districts.

*****

Beyond violating common sense, the proposal violates numerous sections of the Berkeley General Plan and the West Berkeley Plan, (incorporated as part of the General Plan). A few examples follow:

Berkeley General Plan:
Policy LU-34 Industrial Protections - Protect industrial uses in West Berkeley . Actions: B.
Prohibit further expansion of the 4th St commercial area beyond the existing commercially zoned areas.
- Maintain boundaries of the Mixed Use-Light Industrial District.
- Enforce prohibitions of retail uses in the Mixed Use-Light Industrial District.

West Berkeley Plan: B. Special Situations and Regulations: Conversions from Manufacturing and Industrial Uses to Other Uses
- In the Mixed Use/Light Industrial ("Green") zone in particular, the conversion limits seek to maintain the industrial character of the area,

- This district (MULI) --in contrast with the Manufacturing and Mixed Manufacturing districts--contains a substantial percentage of manufacturers and wholesalers which rent rather than own their space, putting them at much greater risk of displacement.  If no limits on the conversion of manufacturing space were enforced here, widespread  displacement of manufacturing would be possible, contrary to the Plan's economic development and land use policy.
- Manufacturing, wholesaling, and warehousing space should be maintained in those uses as much as possible...
*****

As well as the above General Plan and WB Plan specific MULI citations, both documents refer extensively to the rationale for such actions – some examples:

General Plan: Policy ED-2 West Berkeley Industry: Continue to implement the West Berkeley Plan, with its central emphasis on protecting and strengthening the city's manufacturing sector.
Economic Element Objectives:
6. Promote a strong industrial base as a vital foundation of a stable economy.
7. Increase social and economic equity in land use decisions.

Policy ED-2 West Berkeley Industry: Promote a Strong Industrial Base and Living-Wage Jobs. Living-wage jobs for Berkeley residents are important for maintaining stable neighborhoods and quality of life in the city. The Plan supports continued implementation of the West Berkeley Plan with its emphasis on protecting industry.

West Berkeley Plan: Goal 1: Take all reasonable actions to maintain and promote manufacturing and other industrial sectors in Berkeley. Rationale: One of the central thrusts of the Preferred Land Use Concept was to provide a land use framework which would allow manufacturing to remain and expand.

Land Use: Policies:  A. Retaining, through planning, zoning and land use policies which shield manufacturers from economic and physical incompatibilities with other uses, sufficient land and buildings to maintain the current level of manufacturing employment at a minimum. 

Berkeley’s Sustainable Production Lands
For Production & Employment,
Not For More Retail To Compete With Downtown:
Just 4% of Berkeley’s land (the Industrial zones) is devoted to responsibly making, distributing, recycling, and repairing the goods we use as a community and society. These production lands are also employment lands, supplying a majority of the good paying jobs (approximately 7000) available to those in Berkeley without a college education (including the lion’s share of Berkeley’s green-collar jobs). A significant percentage of these jobs employ minorities and disadvantaged populations, making these lands and the companies they support lynchpins in the equity and diversity of our community and region.

With industrial/artisan businesses having lower profit margins than retail, housing, and office uses, industrially zoned land is cheaper (low hanging fruit) than land in other zones, resulting in unending pressure from developers, land speculators, and City government to squeeze more money out of every industrial square foot, the most direct way being through changing zoning for “higher value” uses. This reflects a short-sighted vision, critically out of alignment with the national vision of reinvigorating sustainable production in the U.S. Green industry needs habitat - industrial zones – and Berkeley already contains a stable and robust, sustainable industrial economy. To endanger this economy in service of a gamble on short-term boom and bust retail cycles reflects an impoverished vision by community leaders.

Balancing The Budget On The Backs Of Those Least Able To Afford It:

It’s understandable that the City would like to raise more revenue to meet its financial obligations. But there are other options, and City Hall needs to learn to value the enormous contributions of West Berkeley in terms of revenue, goods & services, and jobs, and quit viewing the area as an underutilized, potential cheap cash cow

Do we as a community truly want to downsize our already minimal production lands, force industrial and artisan companies and their good jobs out of Berkeley, all just to create another shopping strip with minimum wage service jobs?

WEBAIC believes City staff is capable of solutions to fiscal challenges less destructive of the economy and equity than balancing the budget on the backs of those least able to afford it.

The Planning Commission Will Hold A Public Hearing On Rescinding Changes To the West Berkeley Plan Previously Made to Facilitate the Master Use Permit

Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:06:21 -0800

Wednesday, February 6, 7pm, N. Berkeley Senior Cntr. - MLK @ Hearst
*************
Throughout the West Berkeley Project City staff stated they were not changing the West Berkeley Plan, but Council ultimately did change a key Plan provision to conform to their conception of the Master Use Permit.

Due to the Council’s intended implementation measure for the Master Use Permit – Measure T – losing on November’s ballot, the City has now moved to rescind the change to the WB Plan it had previously implemented to facilitate Measure T (the MUP).

The West Berkeley Plan’s Large Site Development Process (LSDP): The West Berkeley Plan has a section devoted to what it calls a Large Site Development Process (LSDP). The genesis of the MUP, this section proposed a permit that could apply to sites of a minimum of 5 acres. As examples of sites that could benefit from such a permit, the Plan referenced only two sites – 11 acre Colgate and 35 acre Miles (Bayer), both considerably larger than 5 acres, and both in strictly industrial zones.

Staff Proposed Radical Expansion of LSDP (MUP) Applicability: At the beginning of the West Berkeley Project staff made the radical proposal to apply this permit, which they renamed the Master Use Permit, to potentially all sites in West Berkeley. This proposal had the potential to remove all industrial protections, and essentially all West Berkeley Plan-implemented zoning provisions, over the entirety of West Berkeley’s industrial zones,

WEBAIC strenuously opposed this proposal and over several years made the case that this permit should only apply as the Plan proposed – to sites of 5 acres or more. Against strong developer and staff opposition, but with strong community support, WEBAIC successfully pushed the minimum Master Use Permit threshold back from the City-proposed 0, to 1, 2, 3, and finally to 4 acres, beyond which we were able to push it no further.

This 4 acre minimum threshold was ultimately installed by Council into the West Berkeley Plan in place of the Plan’s stated 5 acre minimum. It is this 4 acre provision that staff is proposing to rescind at Wednesday’s Planning Commission, restoring the original 5 acre threshold minimum for any large site permit that would hypothetically result from the LSDP section of the Plan.

The notice for the Planning Commission meeting states that the recision action is the result of Measure T failing, but it is likely that an ongoing lawsuit by the Sustainable West Berkeley Alliance against the City claiming that the West Berkeley Project’s Environmental Impact Report was inadequate played a role in this action.

Thank You Berkeley: WEBAIC is gratified that multiple sectors of the Berkeley community came together in diverse ways to work toward the common goal of maintaining the integrity of the West Berkeley Plan and productive industrial, arts/artisan, and residential community it nurtures and protects.

WEBAIC strongly supports the proposed recision action and the restoration of the integrity of the West Berkeley Plan.

Master Use Permit Community Benefits Final Public Hearing At Planning Commission This Coming Wednesday 11/7/12

Fri, 2 Nov 2012 22:53:00 -0700

The Final Planning Commission Public Hearing on Community Benefits derived from Master Use Permit developments will take place this coming Wednesday, November 7th. It will take place at Old City Hall, not the usual North Berkeley Senior Center.

This hearing is likely the last opportunity to testify at the Planning Commission on what developers will be ''required'' to give back to the community for the greater development allowances and resulting profit the Master Use Permit (MUP) will provide. The next Planning Commission meeting is being scheduled for commissioners to discuss and vote on the issue, after which it will head to the City Council.

*****

It’s worth looking once again at the suggestions made by former Berkeley Office of Economic Development Director Neil Mayer on a meaningful approach to Community Benefits:

• Establish basic fees in dollars/per sq ft based on land use. Allow developers to propose in-kind alternatives – fees would be backdrop when no agreement on alternative superior to cash value.

• Set fees in advance – developers will then know how much the benefits will cost, they’ll have certainty, and won’t pay prices for property or design developments so expensive that it would be difficult to feasibly pay appropriate fees.

• Encourage developers to propose individual & joint efforts at employment, training & education – approve plans that offer at least as much benefit as cash – this allows flexibility & innovation.

• Assure community stakeholders that strong and firm standards will be maintained for alternatives to the fees, by developing true community benefit agreements. Create a true Community Benefits Agreement where a board with residents must approve in-kind alternatives. This assures a skeptical community that future councils won’t negotiate a weak set of benefits in place of cash.

• Start effective job training/employment/education programs now so they’re in place when MUPs happen.

• Look at important models – Biotech Partners, Jobs/CAWS in Seattle, the Alameda Corridor Project employment program in LA, – school-to-work programs in Boston & Chicago, etc.

• Structure employment programs so occupants whose identity isn’t known prior to
development can contribute in innovative and flexible ways. Have developer pay a partial up-front employment fee – allow occupants to participate by proposing in-kind options once occupants selected – refund piece of developers fee if they do so and the stakeholders approve their plans, and charge the remainder of cash fee to the developer if they do not.

• Establish MUP fees for various costs up front, so that if in the future properties are occupied by tax-exempt institutions less revenue is lost.

WEBAIC COMES OUT IN OPPOSITION TO MEASURE T - Here’s WHY:

Sun, 14 Oct 2012 22:32:31 -0700

After extensive examination and deliberation, on 10/7/12 WEBAIC membership voted to oppose Berkeley ballot Measure T: Measure T’s opening up of West Berkeley to overly massive development that would destabilize the community and threaten the sustainable land base for industries and artisans/artists underlay and compelled this decision, while deficiencies in the Master Use Permit (MUP) process and ballot venue were also of concern.

Why WEBAIC Opposes T: While WEBAIC accomplishments in the West Berkeley Project are significant (i.e., maintained industrial zones for industrial and artistic production free from incompatible residential uses; maintained large majority of industrial protections assuring adequate land base for industrial/arts activities providing good jobs, revenue, goods & services, and innovative culture; required 4 acres or one city block Master Use Permit threshold when City sought MUP application to potentially all industrial properties; allowed 6 MUPs in 10 years, instead of City-proposed 10 in 5 years; established protected industrial space on MUPs for industrial use, including industrial R&D, not for office use) the following negative components and deficiencies in Measure T compelled WEBAIC membership to oppose it:

1.) Measure T fails to meet the goals of WEBAIC’s mission to maintain a viable land base for industry & arts, goals of the West Berkeley Plan, and the goal of a sustainable standard for West Berkeley development:

Proposed MUP Development Too Large – Destabilizes West Berkeley Plan’s Intended Economic Balance:
WEBAIC supports appropriate, sustainable development in West Berkeley, but never agreed, in public testimony or private negotiations, with a 75’ height limit (80’-90’ with mechanical penthouses). No reasons were given for the need for these heights, as most Bay Area labs are much lower, and offices, manufacturing, & arts don’t require them.
The West Berkeley Plan’s core goal of a mixed use economy is accomplished by carefully balancing different economic uses through fine-tuned zoning. The West Berkeley Project EIR found that the great land value differentials between Master Use Permit developments and the surrounding uses would result in displacement of industrial and artisan companies and jobs, a result with consequences it labeled as a significant and unavoidable environmental impact. These extreme land value differentials resulting from MUPs, and the consequent upsetting of the West Berkeley Plan’s careful balance of economic uses, is a direct result of the proposed MUP heights.
The lack of any functional need for these heights, the displacement effects resulting from their installation, the resulting excessive traffic impacts, the physical detriment to the environment due to shadowing - increased energy costs, diminished solar access, deprivation of light to residents and workers, not to mention wildlife and recreation at Aquatic Park, are key reasons why WEBAIC members feel Measure T does not meet the Goals of the West Berkeley Plan, WEBAIC’s Mission, or a sustainable development standard for West Berkeley and the City.

2.) The West Berkeley Project process resulting in Measure T was deficient:

A.) No Comprehensive Notice: City never noticed all businesses, property owners, and residents of the process.
B.) No attempt at collaborative compromise: City staff never brought stakeholder groups together to seek compromise.
C.) Lack of Data: Marred by a marked lack of data, MUP decision-making rested on insubstantial factual foundation.
D.) Little substantive discussion: Planning Commission had little substantive discussion of the issues.

3.) Ballot not proper venue for determining future of large scale West Berkeley development:

A.) Issue too complex for ballot, one sentence ballot question too simplistic:10 pages of detailed MUP standards (density, heights, setbacks, uses,) too complex for ballot, can’t reasonably be distilled to one sentence Ballot Question.
B.) Money rules elections – no way to do city planning. Unlike a properly run planning process where all voices are equal, elections are typically determined by money, often by developers, as in this case
C.) Affected Parties & Neighborhoods Deserve Most Say Over Their Future: Major decisions on neighborhood development should be made in a process where stakeholders most affected – in this case West Berkeley businesses, employees, residents, and developers – have the greatest say .
D.) Those with knowledge of an area should make decisions about it. The marked lack of familiarity with West Berkeley in the greater Berkeley populace makes tasking them with deciding its future poor policy.
E.) Issues of Equity. Issues of equity arise when the future of areas of greatest diversity and lowest income are significantly determined by areas of higher incomes and less diversity.

Master Use Permit Community Benefits @ Planning Commission Wednesday

Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:51:59 -0700

Discuss & Determine WEBAIC Position On November Berkeley Ballot Measure T, the City Council-Sponsored Master Use Permit Measure

* Time: 5:30pm, Wednesday, September 26th -
Place: To Be Announced

* What Is Measure T (the Master Use Permit On the November Ballot) & Why It's Important For WEBAIC To Address iT

In July, the City Council voted to place the Master Use Permit (MUP) section of the West Berkeley Project on the November Ballot as Measure T. The Master Use Permit allows developers of large sites (minimum four acres or a single City block) the ability to build significantly higher and more dense developments than existing zoning allows.

The Master Use Permit, the third section of the West Berkeley Project (the City's West Berkeley rezoning effort) was the subject of ongoing discussion and deliberation in which WEBAIC took part. Instead of making an expected, final decision on the Master Use Permit themselves, the Council voted in July to put it before all the citizens of Berkeley on the November ballot as Measure T.

As the Master Use Permit will affect a significant percentage of the acreage of West Berkeley's industrial zones where WEBAIC's membership and constituency are located and do business, as WEBAIC was party to all discussions and negotiations around the MUP within the West Berkeley Project process, and as the Master Use Permit will clearly have significant effects upon the industrial zones and the activities within them, it is clearly within WEBAIC's mission and purview to examine this issue and as an organization determine our position on it.

Due to the importance and complexity of this issue, it is beyond the scope of the steering committee to take an organizational position. This is the reason we are calling this general membership meeting to discuss and determine WEBAIC's stance relative to Measure T. To help inform the discussion, another newsletter detailing various issues surrounding Measure T will be forthcoming, Please make an effort to attend this meeting as the effect of Measure T and our position relative to it are likely to have a great impact on the future of our businesses, neighborhood, City, and upon WEBAIC itself.

Planning Commission Special Workshop On Master Use Permit Community Benefits

Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:12:15 -0700

Three Consecutive Weekly Meetings On Master Use Permit Community Benefits:
1. Sept. 12 - Planning Commission Special Mtg – Workshop On Community Benefits
2. Sept. 19 - Planning Commission Public Hearing On Community Benefits
3. Oct.   3 - Planning Commission MUP Community Benefits Discussion
*******
The Upcoming Planning Commission Meetings Are The Most Important Opportunity To Weigh In On What Developers Will Be ''Required'' To Give Back To The Community For The Greater Development Allowances & Resulting Profit the Master Use Permit (MUP) Provides.

The Community Benefit Concept: The concept of municipalities requiring developers of large-scale developments to return ''benefits'' to the community is well established across the country. In the case of West Berkeley, the Master Use Permit, as compared to the existing, underlying zoning, gives developers the potential ability to build higher and more massively, to have greater lattitude in allowable uses, and to request reductions in required parking. These entitlements are expected to provide significantly greater profits for developers taking advantage of a Master Use Permit. The logic of Community Benefits says that the City is entitled to require a developer to return a percentage of this greater, MUP-facilitated profit to the community in the form of ''benefits'', either through fees, programs, or other on-the-ground methods.

A Brief History – The West Berkeley Project Master Use Permit & Community Benefits:   During the Planning Commission's West Berkeley Project deliberations, WEBAIC and community requested that community benefits be specific and mandatory. Although the Commission addressed the topic, they ignored this WEBAIC/community advice and never seriously examined the issue, such as looking at what other communities require of their developments. The result was the Commission's passing of weak and vague benefits language that could be easily interpreted by a Zoning Adjustments Board (the deciding body on Master Use Permits), to mean whatever it might choose. This was a huge red flag, particularly in light of the City of Berkeley's less than exemplary track record in capturing benefits/concessions from developers. And as developers are historically known to threaten cities with pulling their developments unless said city conforms to demands for either concessions or weakening of benefit requirements, clearly defining required benefits and formulas for creating them are especially important if a city is serious about benefits. Whether having a Planning Commission heavily weighted with members with ties to the development/real estate industry played a role in the creation of less than meaningful benefit requirements is a subject worth contemplating for a community serious about balancing its legitimate needs with those of developers.

Council Moves Community Benefits Determination & Implementation In More Positive Direction:
The City Council, in response to testimony from the Alameda County Building & Construction Trades Council, the Berkeley Organizing Congregations For Action (BOCA), WEBAIC, and the community, took a more serious approach to Community Benefits. The community owes a strong Thank You to the Alameda County Building & Construction Trades Council and the Berkeley Organizing Congregations For Action for their strong, pro-active demands before Council that these programs be concrete and enforceable, not phantoms consisting of feel-good words. Council repudiated the Planning Commission's Benefits-Lite approach by passing benefits language that moves issue in a significantly more concrete direction. They passed language that states that the MUP will not go into effect until the Council adopts an ordinance that:
A.) enacts a benefits package.
B.) enacts a formula for determining the value of community benefits that will be required;
C.) creates a process under which applicants for MUPs are required to demonstrate meaningful attempts to meet and consult with the affected community prior to filing an application,
D.) enacts mechanisms for ensuring that the affected community is involved in evaluation of the adequacy of any proposed community benefits, that community benefits inure primarily to the benefit of West Berkeley, and that there is community involvement in overseeing provision of promised community benefits. Additional language states that “The proposed benefits package ust... specify the types of benefits, the method of delivering and guaranteeing these benefits, and their net present value. ...and) demonstrate how the proposed benefits are a reasonable exchange for the requested changes in development standards...Measures to mitigate the land se impacts of the proposed project shall not be considered benefits under this Chapter..."

The above language signals that the conceptual framework for requiring, determining, and overseeing the benefits are on a much stronger trajectory than previously conceived by the Commission. It is up to WEBAIC, the unions, faith organizations, and the community to ensure that this language, and the enforcement mechanisms required to translate this language into real, meaningful benefits, comes to fruition at the Planning Commission.

City Council Puts Menu Of Possible Community Benefits Before The Planning Commission:
The Council, on their own and responding to stakeholder concepts, has put ten potential Community Benefits before the Planning Commission for discussion starting September 12: (Underlining by WEBAIC)

1. Retain and provide affordable work space for artists or funds for that purpose.
2. Provide transportation demand management measures consistent with the West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan Report or funds for that purpose.
3. Provide access to and participation in jobs training programs designed to advance employment prospects for Berkeley residents, especially those living near or below the poverty line.
4. Provide affordable work force housing in West Berkeley or funds for that purpose.
5. Contribute to environmental improvements at Aquatic Park or other measures to improve environmental quality in West Berkeley.
6. Payment of prevailing wages for all construction work under the MUP.
7. Provision of privately owned but publicly accessible open space as part of the MUP.
8. Provision of space and or support to childcare providers so that affordable childcare can be provided to those who need and qualify for it.
9. Require local sourcing of building materials to the extent feasible.
10. Provide benefits or raise funds for programs and initiatives that further goals of the West Berkeley Plan.

Which Community Benefits? On their face, all these potential benefits have points to recommend them, but it is unrealistic to expect the monetary benefits flowing from the MUPs will be enough to significantly fund the entire list. We also must as a community determine whether developers will be allowed to pick and choose, or whether we as a community will determine what are the proper priorities, and whether any benefits rise to such a level of importance that they require mandatory contributions from all MUPs. Additionally, the Planning Commission is not bound by this list, but could consider other benefits arising from testimony.

Another newsletter from WEBAIC addressing our positions on the various benefits and the questions posed above will be forthcoming prior to the Planning Commission's September 12th workshop. Development in some form will continue in West Berkeley, and the upcoming meetings are a critical opportunity for the West Berkeley industrial, artisan, and residential community to weigh in on potential benefits that may be derived from this development.

Council Moving Toward Putting MUP On November Ballot At Tomorrow's Meeting

Mon, 16 Jul 2012 20:53:57 -0700

On 7/10, the City Council majority took several votes aimed at moving the Master Use Permit section of the West Berkeley Project onto the November general election ballot.
Council members Anderson, Arreguin, and Worthington agree with the above perspective. Other Council members admit that the West Berkeley Project's community outreach and inclusion efforts were flawed to non-existent, but believe the train is too far down the tracks to stop. Of course it is well within their power to stop it, as was done twice during the West Berkeley Plan process when significant commercial and residential communities were found to be absent from the process and subsequently invited in.

WEBAIC Testifies For A Democratic Process Where Those With The Greatest Knowledge of West Berkeley and The MUP And Those Most Affected By The MUP – West Berkeley Businesses, Workers, & Residents - Have Greater Determination Over The MUP and West Berkeley's Future: At the 7/10 Council meeting, WEBAIC spoke against placing the MUP on the ballot, speaking instead for the Council to send the issue back to the Planning Commission. This was done in service of 1.) Allowing those businesses and neighbors who had not been notified of the process to have a meaningful say on development standards that could greatly affect their property, lives and livelihoods; 2.) allowing the businesses, workers, and residents of West Berkeley, who by far will be the most affected by the Master Use Permit, and who have the greatest knowledge of this complex part of the City, to have greater determination over the policy direction for West Berkeley zoning. The MUP is extremely complex and can't be reasonably boiled down to one sentence on a ballot measure, and the general citizenry can't be reasonably expected to decipher MUP complexities on a ballot that professional planners working on the issue for years don't fully understand.

Key Actions Council Took On 7/10:

Proposed Changes To Ballot Measure Description: The entire West Berkeley Project Ordinance will be on the November ballot, plus arguments pro and con. A single sentence describing the ballot measure is being written by a hypotetically impartial City attorney, and this is likely the only part of the ballot measure most citizens will read. This fact makes this descriptive sentence the most critical part of the ballot measure and its accuracy and impartiality are essential if citizens are to have any chance of making a rational, informed choice.

City Attorney Impartiality: An initial issue is the question of how a City Attorney serving at the pleasure of a Council majority that has clearly signaled its wishes on a measure can write a truly impartial description of that measure his bosses are publicly not impartial on. The problems inherent in this system have already revealed themselves.On the 10th, Council members noted the inaccuracy of several portions of the CityAttorney-proposed language describing the ballot measure and were successful in having some language improved. Unfortunately,the ''improved'' version before the Council on the 17th remains significantly inaccurate and needs factual revision:

Ballot Measure Language Factual Discrepancies: The ballot measure description now reads: ''Shall an ordinance amending the West Berkeley Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to allow additional development flexibility, including increased floor area ratio and heights up to 75’ on 6 sites during the next 10 years, comprising 25-30 acres and under 10% of West Berkeley industrial land, conditioned on community benefits requirements for West Berkeley, possibly including open space, affordable artist work space, employment programs and conditioned on protections for Aquatic Park, be adopted?’’

Factual Discrepancy: 6 MUPs In 10 Years Can Cover Approximately 28 to 92 Acres, Not City Attorney’s “25 to 30.” Approximate calculations based largely on City documents reveal significant problems with the above figures of ‘’...25-30 acres...’’ and ‘’...under 10% of West Berkeley industrial land...’’The City has identified 9 sites in the SEIR that can qualify as MUPs and additionally identified the single block Goldin site bordering Aquatic Park as MUP eligible. Any six of these sites can apply for an MUP in the next 10 years. The six largest sites, when combined, total over 92 acres. The six smallest sites, when combined, total over 28 acres. These figures of 28-92 acres should be on the ballot, not 25- 30.If one were allowed to reasonably try to guess which are the most likely 6 sites to develop over the next 10 years, a total closer to 35 acres might be accepted by many parties to the process. But the City Attorney is tasked with producing an “impartial analysis”, not guessing or predicting. Such an analysis that the citizens will depend upon to make their informed choice must be constructed strictly of the facts as they stand, not predictions no one is capable of making.

Factual Discrepancy: 6 MUPs In 10 Years Can Cover Approximately 7% - 25% of West Berkeley Industrial Land, Not City Attorney’s “under 10%.” The percentage of West Berkeley industrial land potentially covered by MUPs is given as “under 10%” in the City Attorney’s description. First, it appears that the City Attorney did not remove streets and parks when figuring how much of West Berkeley’s industrial zones is actual industrial land. Once the approximate acreage of non-industrial streets are removed from the total of industrial land, industrial zone acreage becomes 20-25% smaller. Plugging in the 92 acre figure of the 6 largest sites combined (over the next 10 years) into the new total of industrial land reveals that approximately 25% of West Berkeley industrial land is potentially subject to being an MUP over the next 10 years, not “under 10%.”. Plugging in the 6 smallest sites shows that 7.0+% could be covered by the MUP in the next 10 years. Thus, more accurate ballot language would reflect something closer to ‘’7%-25% of West Berkeley industrial land could be subject to the greater development standards of an MUP over the next 10 years”, not “under 10%.”
The above calculations are approximate and should be redone by City staff with accurate GIS mapping capabilities. The discrepancy between the City Attorney’s figures and those above are large and need to be addressed in the interests of providing the citizenry with accurate facts required for them to have any chance of making an informed decision on such a complex and important issue.

''Possible'' Community Benefits In Ballot Measure Language Inappropriate Conjecture, Not Fact: The City Attorney’s ballot description states that the MUP is conditioned on community benefits, “possibly including open space, affordable artist work space, employment programs.”This attempt to sweeten the measure with “possible” but as of yet completely undetermined benefits doesn’t meet the accuracy standard. It’s true that as written the MUPs will be conditioned on community benefits, and the list of “possibilities” includes those mentioned. But, as the City Attorney states later in the document: “specific community benefits have not been defined.” As no particular benefit is presently required and all are yet to be determined, one might just as arguably state that the MUPs are conditioned on benefits that “possibly” include ten lbs of chocolate per year for life to each Berkeley citizen. As literally anything can be proposed and accepted by the Planning Commission (where this is to be decided later this year) as a community
benefit, to allow the City Attorney to cherry pick three (admittedly positive) benefits to place on the ballot measure description, is to allow wishful conjecture to unduly color what must be a statement of fact.

MUP Heights: The Council voted to remove the possibility of 100' heights from the MUP, keeping them at 75'. Even though the expanded heights were for rare instances when a manufacturer might require them for industrial processes or equipment (a concept WEBAIC first proposed), the Council majority realized that even mentioning 100 foot heights would look bad at the ballot. Though not discussed as such at the Council meeting, a calculation was clearly made that this exceptional circumstance (only needed once in 25 years at Bayer) was not worth the potential bad PR at the polls.

If MUP Is Placed On November Ballot, Ballot Measure Description Must Be Accurate And Unbiased:
As stated above, WEBAIC does not believe the ballot is the proper venue for MUP provision decisions to be made. West Berkeley is not downtown that most citizens have ready familiarity with. Even Council members who are tasked with understanding the City were greatly surprised at the complexity, diversity, and robust nature of West Berkeley’s economy and culture when given a comprehensive tour by WEBAIC. For these and reasons stated at the beginning of this newsletter WEBAIC believes the MUP should be returned to a true stakeholder process where, for the first time, all West Berkeley parties could be brought together to collectively create policy for the greater good. But if the citizens are to ultimately make a decision on the Master Use Permit at the ballot, the law, fairness, and the City’s hopes for positive, productive policies demand an accurate MUP ballot measure description. We’re not there yet. You can help us get there at the City Council on Tuesday, July 17th.

City Council Majority Decides Not To Vote On Master Use Permit (MUP), Votes Instead To Put MUP Before City On November Election Ballot

Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:28:25 -0700

Parcels Adjacent To Aquatic Park Severed From 11/12 MUP Ballot Item Referred Back To Planning Commission For Reconsideration

Council Move Intentionally Preempts Potential Referendum By Citizens

MUP Ballot Language Before Council Tuesday, 7/10 - Please Attend
7:00 pm, June 12th, City Council Chambers - 2134 MLK Way between Center & Allston

Council Votes Not To Vote On MUP, Votes Instead To Place MUP On November Ballot: In expectation of a referendum on the Master Use Permit by residents (WEBAIC was not involved in the referendum) the City Council majority voted on June 12 to place the MUP provisions on the November 2012 ballot instead of approving them at the Council level. The Council also voted to approve the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on the MUP.

With the knowledge that citizens had already begun taking action to initiate a referendum on the Master Use Permit, the Council majority voted to place the item on the ballot before the Berkeley populace instead. If citizens had been successful in collecting the required amount of signatures for a referendum, the MUP could not be considered for a year. It could then either be placed on another upcoming election ballot (2014?) or be brought before voters in a special election just on that item. The Council majority clearly did not want to wait that length of time for the MUP to be enacted so it voted to send the item back to Planning staff with a directive that staff bring back ballot language and some changes for potential approval the July 12th meeting.

Council Votes To Sever Aquatic Park Provisions From Ballot Item: The Coucil majority voted to send back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration the development standard provisions governing the two parcels directly adjacent to Aquatic Park – the Jones' 8.2 acre American Soils property and the 2.9 acre property owned by Michael and Steven Goldin. Statements from Council members at the 6/12 meeting revealed that there were two reasons for this action. First, the Sierra Club, Citizens for East shore Parks, and Golden Gate Audubon Society had all come out for restrictions on development on these parcels significantly stronger than what was before Council. This, and the California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit by Sustainable West Berkeley Neighbors on this issue was a clear indication that previous Aquatic Park considerations had been less than adequate and a more serious look at park protections was needed. Second, with the environmental organizations opposed to the MUP development standards, the Council majority did not want these organizations opposing their MUP November ballot item. By removing the Aquatic park parcels from the November MUP ballot item, the Council majority figured it would not have to face opposition at the ballot from these environmental organizations on the MUP.

“Full” Parking Waivers For MUPs Removed: An MUP provision WEBAIC had opposed since its introduction several years ago, the possibility of giving MUP developers the ability to totally waive any parking requirements for their developments, was finally removed in a successful motion by Councilmember Capitelli. This was replaced by a provision to allow the possibility of partial parking waivers of up to 50% of the required parking if proven methods to get people out of their cars and onto mass transit, bikes, or walking to work were instituted.

Community Benefits, Aquatic Park “Protection Provisions”, MUP Aggregation All Returning To Planning Commission: Sometime in the fall the three above items will be addressed by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Maio specifically asked that there be a more collaborative process at the Commission level to address these issues, a process where stakeholders are actually brought together to discuss their concerns and work toward mutually agreed upon solutions. This is clearly the best practice to achieve positive policy results for such critically important issues as Community Benefits and Aquatic Park. Additionally, the issue of how much property can be aggregated by Master Use Permit developers will be before the Commission. Councilmember Capitelli has proposed that whichever six sites are developed over the next ten years, they be allowed to aggregate an additional 20% beyond their existing acreage as of August 1, 2011. The purpose of this would be to allow developers to purchase remaining parcels on blocks of which they already own a majority of property.

City Council Reopens Master Use Permit (MUP) Public Hearing & Plans Vote On Modified MUP Proposals June 12 - Please Attend

Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:34:07 -0700

Large Turnout For May 22 Council Meeting – 4th In A Row
Councilmember Capitelli Proposes MUP Modifications
New Public Hearing Set On New Council MUP Proposals: At the beginning of the May 22nd City Council deliberations on the Master Use Permit (MUP), Councilmember Laurie Capitelli introduced a number of modifications to existing MUP proposals that he, Councilmember Linda Maio, WEBAIC, residents, and others had worked on for the previous two weeks. This process resulted in improved proposals and agreement among parties on some provisions. Many of the public at the meeting, particularly Mixed Use Residential zone residents, expressed that though the proposals contained some improvements, they had not seen them and needed time to study them. The City Council agreed the new proposals constituted significant changes and warranted reopening the public hearing on Tuesday, June 12 where Council is planning to vote.

Speakers Call For Starting MUP Over – Council Majority Moves Ahead: A number of speakers on the 22nd and at previous meetings expressed that the MUP process has been so flawed, the issue should be returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Three Council members expressed sympathy with this idea but the majority have shown no inclination to join in this effort. WEAIC agrees that the process has been seriously deficient, partly due to the absence of critically needed data throughout, and more particularly, due to staff never having brought stakeholders together to work collaboratively on solutions.

WEBAIC Meets With Council Members Seeking Master Use Permit Provision Improvements: Over the past several months WEBAIC chair John Curl and WEBAIC staff Rick Auerbach have been meeting with City Council members and the Mayor seeking improvements to the MUP proposals. In the last two weeks WEBAIC staff Rick Auerbach has met and negotiated extensively with Councilmembers Laurie Capitelli and Linda Maio. In an effort to achieve a comprehensive MUP result that also worked for WEBAIC's residential neighbors, WEBAIC facilitated bringing residents into this process, as in this second and final MUP round residents had not had the opportunity to engage directly with Council members.

Councilmember/WEBAIC Meetings No Substitute For Meaningful, Inclusive Process: WEBAIC appreciates the tremendous amount of effort put in by Councilmembers Capitelli and Maio in the last few weeks to craft a better MUP that takes into consideration a wider range of concerns. Councilmembers were also in discussion with developers during this time. Unfortunately, the magnitude of this required effort was directly proportional to the inadequacies of the the MUP process where many MUP provisions had seen little serious examination and discussion before the Commission.

In service of avoiding a Berkeley community irreparably divided by a flawed result, it became apparent that Council members and community members had to attempt to recraft reasonable provisions. In contrast, by this stage of the West Berkeley Plan process (in 1993) all participants had jointly signed a zoning map, the Planning Commission had voted 9-0 in favor, and Council would soon do the same. That hundreds of dissatisfied people are showing up at the end of the MUP process with the Council still divided tells us the present process falls far short of the 1993 WB Plan standard. While WEBAIC believes the new provisions introduced by Mr Capitelli contain important improvements, more work is needed to create an MUP that results in fewer negative impacts to MUR residents, industrial & artisan businesses, and the people and wildlife depending on Aquatic Park.

Why WEBAIC Continues to Engage In The Process: With all the above being said, the West Berkeley Project process is the larger venue in which critical decisions are now being made that will greatly affect the future viabiity of West Berkeley industry and arts, and WEBAIC has a responsibility to achieve the best results possible for our membership and constituency within this process. Do we think it has been a good process? No. If the MUP was returned to the Planning Commission we would do our best within that process to achieve positive results, but we don't see the Council taking such an action at this time. Therefore we will continue to do our best to achieve concrete policies supporting our constituency where such policies are being made.

The Master Use Permit Provisions:
Existing Zoning, MUP Proposals Prior To 5/22nd, & New Council-Proposed MUP Modifications Introduced at 5/22nd Council Meeting

The following section details the:
Existing zoning provisions - EZP
Prexisting MUP proposals - PMP – MUP proposals existing before May 22nd
New, modified MUP Proposals - NMP - MUP Proposals put forward on May 22nd
When necessary, WEBAIC commentary and “Plain English” explanations are added:

• Community Benefits: Community Benefits will go back to the Planning Commission with a provision that “No MUP may be approved until the City Council has adopted specific and concrete Community Benefits Agreement requirements to implement the benefits requirement of this Ordinance.”
- The WEBAIC-suggested benefit of requiring local sourcing of building materials for MUP construction has been added to the benefits list.

• MUP Development Standards •

A. Development Standards Applicable To Master Use Permit Property In Any Zone (Except C-W)

• PP- PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Full or partial reduction of off-street parking requirements;
WEBAIC Comment: Consideration of full or significant parking waivers on million+ sq ft developments is a destructive and irresponsible affront to the businesses and residents of the neighborhoods in which these MUPs are located and which are already near 100% street parking capacity. This proposal is applicable to residential as well as commercial and industrial developments.

B. Development Standards Applicable To Master Use Permit Property In MULI, MM, M Districts:

• NMP - HEIGHT LIMITATIONS: increases in permitted maximum height to 75’ (45’ EZP), with site-wide average height of 50’. Exception: Can go to 100 feet if a absolutely necessary for production or manufacturing process.
- Plain English: 50% of a site can be parking lot (0’ height) & 50% can be 75’ = average height of 37.5’

• PMP- SETBACKS: “buildings shall be setback five (5) feet from any property line that abuts or confronts an MU-R zone not located within the MUP site”

• PMP- FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): Existing = 2. Proposed = 3.
- Plain English: FAR 3 = On a 100,000 sq ft site 300,000 sq ft of building is permitted. This total is constrained by lot coverage and height limitations, setbacks, and open space requirements, .

• NMP- LOT COVERAGE & OPEN SPACE: Maximum lot coverage 75% - minimum 10% publicly accessible open space, not including surface parking.

C. Development Standards Applicable To MUP Property in the Commercial West Berkeley Zone (C-W) - San Pablo, Ashby, University Ave.

• NMP - HEIGHT, MASSING (Floor Area Ratio) DENSITY: Underlying C-W zoning applies.
- WEBAIC Comment: So far Council has decided to respect and uphold existing development standards on the C-W Commercial corridors, but not in the Mixed Use Residential Zone. Why?

D. Development Standards Applicable To MUP Property in the Mixed Use Residential Zone (MUR):
• EZP - HEIGHT: Existing MUR height limit is 35’.
• NMP - MUP PROPOSAL FOR ALL USES IN MUR: “Buildings shall be no higher than 35 feet at the property line or setback line, whichever applies, and may increase to a maximum height of 45 feet provided they do not ntersect a plane starting at 35 feet high and sloping on a 30 degree angle from horizontal inward toward the lot.”
- Plain English: Buildings stepped back at 30 degree angle from street frontage – can’t see story above 35’ from that street plus less shadowing.
• NMP - STATE DENSITY BONUS ALLOWING EXTRA BUILDING HEIGHT FOR RESIDENTIAL IN MUR: “height granted using the density bonus provisions may not intersect the plane in Section 23B.36.050.A.2.ii unless the applicant can demonstrate that adherence to this provision would be in violation of state law.
- Plain English: The extra story allowed by the state density bonus would be required to be at the back part of the property furthest from the street, if the developer doesn’t fight it claiming the requirement illegal. WEBAIC Comment: Local historical precedent points to likely developer legal challenge.

• EZP - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: - 1 unit per 1250 sq ft of land.
- NMP - PROPOSED STANDARD: Same as in C-W - Commercial West Berkeley (S. Pablo) governed by state standards allowing 150 sq ft efficiency units, many times existing MUR standards.

E. Allowing Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone Uses In the Mixed Use Residential Zone On MUPs:

• NMP - PROHIBITED USES: Construction products manufacturing, pharmaceutical manufacturing, testing and commercial biological research laboratories, and commercial excavation.
• NMP - R&D: Any research and development use that may be allowed in an MU-R portion of an MUP site is only allowed subject to the findings in Section 23B.36.090.E;
- WEBAIC Comment: Non-office R&D uses should absolutely require a public hearing if locating in the MUR where they’re now prohibited. Our MUR neighbors have a right to a venue where the activities and substances are that are being used in these facilities can be known and commented on before location is approved.

F. Mixed Use Residential Zone Uses In The Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone On MUPs:
• PMP -RESIDENTIAL USES: Residential uses shall not be allowed in the M/MM/MU-LI portions of an MUP site.
WEBAIC Comment: WEBAIC strongly supports this provision.
G. Proposed New Master Use Permit Mitigation Measures:
• NMP - ARCHITECTURAL VARIATION: In order to prevent degradation of existing visual character from architecture that does not adequately differentiate building mass and to promote buildings with a variety of heights that are properly articulated with interesting architecture to improve the visual character of the West Berkeley Plan area, the following guidelines will apply:
1) No more than 25% of the area can be at a single height as part of a contiguous mass at that height.
2) Buildings shall be properly articulated using either physical and/or visual methods to reduce the appearance of a single, undifferentiated mass. Such techniques include, but are not limited to; vertical or horizontal banding, vertical or horizontal changes in materials or colors, and/or horizontal elements on the facade of the building.
- WEBAIC Comment: The intent of this provision is positive, but as written, the “25% at a single height” provision is inadequate to produce the desired result.

• PMP - EXISTING MUP SHADOW STANDARD: A significant shadow is one that blocks direct sunlight for more than four hours a day for more than four months of a year on any building or property that people typically occupy.
- NMP - PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE SHADOW STANDARD LANGUAGE: A significant shadow is defined as one that blocks direct sunlight for more than two hours a day for more than two months of a year on any building or property that people would typically occupy.
- WEBAIC Comment: The proposed 2 hour, 2 month standard is a significant improvement.
• NMP - SOLAR ACCESS: MUP projects may not cast shadows that substantially impair the function of a building using passive solar heat collection, solar collectors for hot water heating, or photovoltaic solar collectors.
- WEBAIC Comment: This proposed addition is positive but how is “substantially impair” defined here?

H. Aquatic Park Mitigation Measures:

• NMP - NEW SETBACK PROPOSAL: All buildings must be set back 100’ from the water’s edge.
- WEBAIC comment: The eastern edge of Bolivar Drive along the lagoon is approximately an average of 80’ from the water (variable), leaving the building setback requirement from the road approximately 20’
•. NMP - BUILDING HEIGHT: Start at 45’ and step back at 45 degree angle up to 75’
• NMP - LANDSCAPING: Landscaping Adjacent To Aquatic Park shall be habitat friendly.

WEBAIC POSITIONS For 6/12 City Council Meeting
• Support the MUP Provision Of No Housing In Industrial Zones
-Yes To Keeping Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) for “Makers & Recyclers”
• Support Robust and Defined Community Benefits As Put Forward By The Alameda County Building & Construction Trades Council, WEBAIC, & Berkeley Organizing Congregations For Action (BOCA)
• Support Maintaining Existing Heights On Master Use Permit Sites
• Keep Mixed Use Residential Zone(MUR) Livable – No Expanded Heights, Public Hearing for R&D in MUR.
- Preserve Livability, Minimize Shadowing, Maintain Solar Access, Maintain Views of Bay & Hills

• Aquatic Park: Support Sierra Club, Citizens for East shore Parks, and Golden Gate Audubon Society Protections.

Council Intends to Vote On Tuesday, May 22nd • Turnout Critical Official Public Hearing Closed • Public Comment On 22nd Still Open

Fri, 18 May 2012 17:35:32 -0700

For the third week a large crowd kept City Council late in chambers, telling the decision makers that many Master Use Permit provisions were unacceptable. After closing the public hearing Council discussed the MUP and directed staff to return with specific options to consider for adoption on the 22nd. Though the official public hearing has been closed, the public is still allowed to speak to the item during public comment time. Comments made after the offical hearing closes aren't part of the official public record for legal purposes, but hopefully Council members' minds and ears remain open to what speakers have to say.
Synopsis of MUP Provisions, The Planning Director's Recommendations, and Council Responses:

Housing In Industrial Zones: The Planning Director, Eric Angstadt, maintained his recommendation that housing not be allowed in the industrial zones on MUPs. Although a few developers spoke against this provision from the floor, the Council members did not question Mr. Angstadt on this recommendation. WEBAIC commends both the Planning Director for his recommendation that preserves good jobs and valuable economic activity by keeping housing out of industrial zones and the Council members supporting this position. Mr. Angstadt's recommendation is just that at this point so it is important we strongly support this provision at Council on the 22nd.

Community Benefits Agreement (CBA): There appears to be general agreement among Council members with Mr. Angstad's recommendation that: the Community Benefits Agreement be sent back to the Planning Commission for full consideration; no MUPs will be approved until the CBA is adopted by Council; an independent consultant will determine the value of the MUP to developer, upon which benefits will be based; the CBA would be enforcable and binding upon a developer; specific and concrete benefits will be determined by the Planning Commission for adoption by Council. These provisions provide a reasonable framework for beginning to address the mutual goals of the Alameda County Building & Construction Trades Council, Berkeley Organizing Congregations For Action (BOCA), and WEBAIC.

MUR Development Standards: Mr. Angstadt proposed maintaining the 35' MUR height, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and residential density standards. Several council members spoke for: greater heights for MUR residential development on MUPs (less than 75') in order to accomodate more housing; raising FAR to 3;

Moving Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone Uses Into the Mixed Use Residential Zone: Mr. Angstadt's recommendation remained to allow Pharmacuetical manufacturing, Laboratories, and R&D uses into the MUR on MUPs. There was some discussion among Council on possible restrictions to this list.

MUP Heights & Massing In Industrial Zones: Mr. Angstadt's recommendation remained 75' height allowable on 50% of an MUP site plus up to 100' for essential industrial equipment/processes on 33% of an MUP. He
recommends there be a 5 ' setback and a 35' height limit where MULI property confronts or abuts MUR property with a stepback of one foot for every additional foot in height.

Figures show permitting 50% MUP coverage at 75' allows up to forty-two 75' buildings on the six potential MUP sites. These height limits do not include mechanical penthouses on roofs that are often enclosed and appear as an additional floor from 8-16' in height. With these penthouses 75' buildings become closer to 85' or 90' buildings, the height of the Fantasy tower. Recommending the possibility of 100' buildings on 33% of MUP property is extreme, especially compared to the very rare and unexpected instance this provision was intended to address.

Aquatic Park: The proposed Aquatic Park protections appear to be improving somewhat but do not come close the standards required by the Sierra Club, Golden Gate Audubon Society, or Citizens For Eastshore Parks.

Beyond the critically important and sensible recommendation to keep housing out of the industrial zones, the Planning Director's has made MUP recommendations that reasonably address some WEBAIC and residential neighbor concerns but not others.

Unfortunately, the Council members' rejection of several of Mr. Angstadt's most reasonable recommendations is another step backward in efforts to achieve resolution through reasonable accomodations by all sides. WEBAIC continues to seek Master Use Permit provisions that do not threaten West Berkeley's vibrant industrial & artisan economy and jobs and supports the efforts of our residential neighbors to achieve MUP provisions that maintain a healthful and livable environment.

• WEBAIC POSITIONS For 5/22 City Council Meeting •
• Support the Planning Director’s Recommendation: No Housing In Industrial Zones
-Yes To Keeping Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) for “Makers & Recyclers”
• Support the Positions of the Alameda County Building & Construction Trades
Council, WEBAIC, & Berkeley Organizing Congregations For Action (BOCA) on defined Community Benefits Determined Jointly By the Developer & Community.
• Keep Mixed Use Residential Zone Livable – No 75’ Heights, No MULI Uses In MUR
• Support Maintaining Existing Heights On Master Use Permit Sites
Preserve Livability, Minimize Shadowing, Maintain Solar Access, Maintain Views of Bay & Hills
• Support Sierra Club, Citizens for Eastshore Parks, and Golden Gate Audubon
Society’s Recommendations for Aquatic Park Protections

L a r g e C r o w d T e l l s C o u n c i l A g a i n : “Keep Industrial Zones For Makers, Keep Mixed Use Residential Livable”

Fri, 11 May 2012 12:01:52 -0700

New Planning Director, Council Move In Positive Direction, Further To Go

Planning Director Recommendations:
N o R e s i d e n t i a l i n I n d u s t r i a l Z o n e s

No Change In Mixed Use Residential Zone Density
Minor Moderation On Heights/Massing, Community Benefits Still Don’t Meet Union/ WEBAIC Standards, Aquatic Park Protections Remain Inadequate

Plz Attend Tuesday, 5/15: Public Hearing Kept Open + Council Set To Vote

7:00 pm, May 15, City Council Chambers –
2134 MLK Way (between Center & Allston)

We Are Making A Difference – One Final Meeting To Go – Please Attend:
For the second night, West Berkeley businesses & residents turned out in large numbers to let City Council know that the Master Use Permit(MUP) proposals as written were not acceptable. In contrast to May 1st, on the 8th a number of people came out to support the proposed MUP (still 2 to 1 opposed). While some valuable independent voices spoke from this perspective a sizeable percentage of these speakers had direct financial relationships with the developers seeking the MUPs. The City Council as a whole appears to be beginning to listen to the voice of the industrial and artisan businesses and workers and West Berkeley residents. WEBAIC appreciates this welcome movement that we hope continues on the 15th when a final vote is expected. Please continue to show up as a great deal is still to be accomplished for the WEBAIC membership and constituency and our West Berkeley residential neighbors. This is no time to stay at home.

Planning Director Eric Angstadt Recommends No Dwellings In Industrial Zones:
The new Planning Director made his policy debut by taking a common sense, and in this case bold, stance to keep the industrial zones free of incompatible residences. WEBAIC applauds this forward-looking, sensible approach that assures a continuing and successful West Berkeley economic mix while supporting community equity and environmental sustainability.

Mixed Use Residential Zone Issues:
Another positive recommendation from the Planning Director was that residential densities should remain as they are in the MUR on MUPs. Unfortunately, he recommended maintaining the 75’ height limit in the MUR for all uses in neighborhoods of mostly one to two story modest single family homes this height appears extreme and detrimental. Additionally, Mr. Angstadt supports the proposal to allow Mixed Use Light Industrial (MULI) Zone uses – pharmaceutical manufacturing, labs, and R&D into the MUR where sensitive receptors live and go to school. Growing children, the elderly, and ill are all particularly sensitive to their environment – that is why these uses have been prohibited thus far. The MUR is only 20% of the four industrial zones – the other 80% should be more than sufficient for these uses.

Heights on MUPs outside MUR:
The Planning Director’s recommendation of allowing no more than 50% of an MUP to be 75’ is actually no real limitation. With reasonable open space requirements, setbacks, and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 3 it is almost impossible now to build out more than 50% of a lot at 75’. Wareham (for a relevant example) often constructs lab buildings to maximum height in a C shape around the perimeter of a site, with a courtyard center. This may only cover 50% of a site but presents as a 75’ wall on at least 3 sides, typically running the entire north-south length of a block, obstructing all east/west views. Allowing even 25% of the six mentioned MUP sites to be built at 75’ would result in 23 – 28 buildings with a 13,000 sq ft floor plate, equivalent to the Fantasy tower (Fantasy tower is 90 ft, not 75). Complicating the issue is that parking structures are not counted in FAR (not counted as allowable floor space), yet they present as a significant mass on a site. Heights and massing taken together are complex and need time and expertise to understand - Council collectively has had the benefit of enough of neither to do this critically important topic justice.

Aggregation Of Land By/For MUPs:
It appears all parties accept the reasonable concept of 6 MUPs in 10 years and that there will be a “date by”, either now or in the past, at which no more aggregation of land to create an MUP will be permitted. WEBAIC supports these concepts. There is also the concept of allowing MUPs owning most of a block to be permitted to fill out their block if able to purchase adjoining properties after the “date by”. The six MUP sites that have been focused on now come to a total of almost 35 acres. Placing an upper limit of 40 acres for total MUP applicability would allow this minor aggregation without allowing the MUP to grow in an unlimited fashion. An important aspect of this concept would be that this potential aggregation could not take place on new blocks across the street from existing MUPs but would be confined to existing MUP blocks.

Community Benefits:
WEBAIC is supporting the Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council Community Benefits proposal that will result in real benefits for the community determined with meaningful input from the community. As presently written, amorphous community benefits may or may not materialize, depending upon the given political climate and the sway of the developer at time of development. The Building and Construction Trades Council’s proposal assures that for the multi millions of dollars of added value the MUP provides a developer, tangible benefits of value must be returned to the citizens of Berkeley. WEBAIC supports Berkeley Organizing Congregations For Action’s call for “ a robust and well-defined community benefits agreement that is committed to making concrete pathways for employment and economic development.” We support the proposals in their May 8th letter to City Council that are aligned with the Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council’s proposals. In keeping with the Trades Council’s proposal that a group of community based organizations, including representatives of the industrial and artisan community, convene to determine appropriate community benefits, WEBAIC believes it appropriate for BOCA’s proposed “oversight committee of West Berkeley community based organizations” to include WEBAIC as participant.

Aquatic Park Protections:
WEBAIC supports the recommendations of the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, and Citizens For Eastshore State Park for protecting Aquatic Park. The MUP proposal as written does not meet the standards of these environmental organizations, to which we defer for their expertise in environmental matters.

WEBAIC POSITIONS For 5/15 Council Public Hearing

1. 1.Support Planning Director Angstadt’s Sensible Recommendation: No To Residences in the Industrial Zones – M, MM, MULI. -Yes To Keeping Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) for “Makers & Recyclers” 

1. 2.No To Incompatible Industrial Uses In the Mixed Use Residential Zone (MUR)- Yes To Keeping the MUR Livable - Support existing zoning. 

1. 3.Support Existing Height Limits: -Yes To expanded height for industrial equipment/processes requiring it “from grade.” 

1. 4.Support the Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council Community Benefits proposal and the Berkeley Organizing Congregations For Action’s Community Benefits Proposal as it aligns with the Trades Council’s. 

1. 5.Support the Recommended Protections For Aquatic Park Proposed by the Sierra Club, Golden Gate Audubon Society, and Citizens For Eastshore Parks.

Please Attend: West Berkeley Master Use Permit Hearing Tuesday 5 / 8 Hearing Continued To 8th Due To Large Turnout

Sun, 6 May 2012 19:29:20 -0700

Council May Take Positive Action, But Only If Businesses & Citizens Show Up
Please Tell Council: Keep Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone For Employment & Production (No Residents In MULI), Keep Existing Heights, Protect Aquatic Park

WEBAIC and Alameda County Building & Construction Trades Council
Collaborate on Community Benefits and Housing Location Proposal:

         Clarification: WEBAIC Position On MUR Residential Densification on MUPs

On May 1st City Council Chambers were filled to capacity with concerned West Berkeley and Berkeley citizens unmistakably telling the City Council that Master Use Permit proposals as written are unacceptable to both the industrial/artisan business community and residents. Most of the meeting was taken up by robust public testimony with Council members afterward voicing concerns for staff to address on Tuesday, May 8.

We CAN Make A Difference: Because of the size our City and its active, informed citizenry, turnout at City Council meetings in Berkeley CAN make a difference in Council’s legislative outcomes. The industrial, artisan, art, and residential communities together made a great start at the 5/1 Council meeting with so many impassioned and informed speakers and attendees. For the Council to take positive action in response to last week’s turnout, we must show up again and demonstrate that the concern they heard on the 1st is wide, deep, and long-lasting.

Destructive MUP Proposals NOT Required To Make MUPs “Feasible”: The MUP proposals are not the minor adjustments to the West Berkeley Plan that the Planning staff and Planning Commission claim. These provisions are not what the Large Site Development section of the West Berkeley Plan, upon which the MUP is supposed to be based, envisioned as potential zoning adjustments required only to make a large project “feasible”.

Some of the MUP proposals NOT needed to make a Master Use Permit development “feasible”:
• Putting residences into the Mixed Use Light Industrial zone
• Putting 75’ heights into the Mixed Use Residential Zone;
• Putting pharmaceutical manufacturing and laboratories in the Mixed Use Residential zone;
• Putting 75’ buildings adjacent to Aquatic Park, degrading wildlife habitat and citizen park environment.
• Putting 75’ heights throughout the MUPs, shadowing surrounding industrial, commercial, and residential properties, depriving solar access and solar gain.
The Supplemental Environmental Report (SEIR) claims that “”Industrial and commercial uses are not sensitive to the loss of direct sunlight (are not sensitive to shadows), as interior lighting provides illumination levels needed...” “Consequently, shadow analysis does not consider impacts on industrial and commercial uses.” This would come as very interesting news to artists, architects, designers, office workers, people working in manufacturing, etc. that – “none of you need sunlight”. How this correlates with the SEIR “Building Energy Use” directive that MUPs should “Improve energy use standards for residential and non-residential buildings” is another of the mysteries embodied in this enigmatic document (SEIR) that also claims residents and industry are economically incompatible, but not physically incompatible.

WEBAIC and Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council Collaborate on Community Benefits and Housing Location Positions: WEBAIC is supporting the Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council proposals that 1.) The MUP development agreements contain defined Community Benefits developed in discussion between the MUP developer and representatives of labor, faith, and the industrial and artisan business community, and 2). The construction work force will be paid area standard wages with at least 30% of the workforce to be local hires. A local worker will be defined as in the Agreement between the City of Berkeley and the Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council. Apprentices will be employed on the project who are enrolled in a State Certified Labor Management Apprenticeship Program. One new apprentice will be placed on the project, who is a resident of Berkeley, for every five million dollars in construction cost. The Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council supports keeping housing on the Mixed Use Residential portion of MUPs where presently allowed.

Clarification: WEBAIC Position On MUR Residential Densification on MUPs: In light of feedback and internal discussion, WEBAIC is no longer proposing densification of MUR portions of MUPs until greater consultation with MUR residents and neighborhood organizations can be undertaken.
WEBAIC represents its industrial, artisan, and artist membership and seeks to represent the best interests of these larger West Berkeley sectors, but we do not speak for the West Berkeley residential community.
In keeping with our Mission Statement provision: - “To work cooperatively as good neighbors with the larger community, so we can say tomorrow what we say today, that West Berkeley Works!” – our goal is to consult our residential neighbors to assure our actions support both a workable and livable West Berkeley.
Under inordinate time pressure from Council’s rush to pass the MUP, the 5/3 WEBAIC Newsletter proposed densification of MUR portions of MUPs. Though WEBAIC has numerous industrial/artisan business members and residential supporter members in the MUR and spoke with several MUR residents to determine the reasonableness of this proposal, putting the proposal out was done without the extensive consultation with the MUR residential community that has been our standard practice and for this lapse we sincerely apologize.

• WEBAIC POSITIONS For May 1st City Council Public Hearing •

1. No To Residences in Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone – (MULI)
    -Yes To Keeping Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) for “Makers & Recyclers”

2. No To Incompatible Industrial Uses In the Mixed Use Residential(MUR)
Yes To Keeping the MUR Livable - Support existing zoning.

3. Support Existing Height Limits:
      -Yes to expanded height for industrial equipment/processes requiring it “from grade.”

     4. Only Development Near Aquatic Park That Doesn’t Degrade Wildlife Habitat or Recreation

Please Attend Tonight’s Critical 5/1 Council Public Hearing On Master Use Permits Governing West Berkeley’s Largest Sites

Tue, 1 May 2012 23:22:12 -0700

Support A Sustainable & Equitable 21st Century West Berkeley:
• Assure A Secure Place for Makers, Recycling, Distribution, Repair, & Arts:
No Housing In The Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI)
• Assure A Healthy Environment For Residents & Workforce Housing:
Support Housing In Mixed Use Residential & CW (S. Pablo) Zones On MUPs

WEBAIC POSITIONS For May 1st City Council Public Hearing
•1. No Residences in the Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone – (MULI)
Yes To Keeping Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) for “Makers & Recyclers”
Placing incompatible residential housing in industrial zones leads to displacement of good jobs in industry and arts, eroding local economies and culture and furthering inequities at a time of extreme inequality.

2. No Incompatible Industrial Uses In the Mixed Use Residential Zone (MUR)
Yes To Keeping the Mixed Use Residential Zone Safe & Livable - Support existing zoning.
There is no need for labs with potentially dangerous substances to locate near residents when these uses can locate on 80% of West Berkeley’s industrial zone land now.

3. Support Existing Height Limits:
Yes to expanded height for industrial equipment/processes requiring it “from grade.”
The heights and shadows from proposed 75’ buildings will create shadows that will block solar access, block Hill views and Bay views from as high as Euclid Ave., negatively impact wildlife and plant life, create greater carbon emissions from the increased need for lighting and heating, and forever change the character of the recreational and wildlife habitat of Aquatic Park.

4. Only Support Development Near Aquatic Park That Doesn’t Degrade Wildlife Habitat or
Recreational Parkland

The Larger West Berkeley Context – Equity & Sustainability:
As part of the effort to create sustainable ways for people to live in harmony with the Earth’s natural systems and combat climate change, WEBAIC supports the creation of more housing in cities. In the urgent push for this policy, some proponents have unfortunately failed to take a thoughtful, comprehensive view and seek housing anywhere without concern for consequences. WEBAIC supports appropriate densification of housing along transit corridors and residential neighborhoods, but siting housing in industrial zones is destructive of good jobs for working people, important local economic activity, and environmental sustainability.

Almost 7000 family-wage jobs in 300+ industrial companies depend on West Berkeley’s industrial zones for their unimpeded operations. The siting of housing in the industrial zones is not only unnecessary (since the sites that want this already have residentially-zoned property), but destructive of regional equity, environmental sustainability, and a thriving local economy responsible for our bread, beer, bikes and too many important goods and services to begin to name here. The jobs in these companies are the only major source of good jobs in our City for those without a college degree -the most disadvantaged workers – and putting housing in the industrial zones directly threatens our City’s core contribution to equity.

The Obama administration’s strong emphasis on revitalization of manufacturing and societal equity has put the retention of industrial land across the US in the spotlight as essential to these goals. As Berkeley’s recently retired Planning Director has clearly stated, keeping housing out of industrial zones is “planning canon” because residents complain about noise, hours of operation, dust, etc., eventually forcing out companies and good jobs. The City’s own Environmental Impact Report for these proposed developments states that putting housing in industrial zones is a Significant & Unavoidable environmental impact since housing inflates land values such that industry is priced out and forced out over time, leading to negative environmental consequences. Hausrath Economics’ “Goods Movement” Report for the MTC and ABAG arrives at the same conclusion, detailing the negative environmental consequences resulting from the loss and displacement of companies and jobs to areas outside the Central Bay as 1.) greater criteria pollutants, 2.) greater Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), 3.) and greater GHG emissions. The report concludes that this consequences are all contrary to region’s Smart Growth Vision. The City of Berkeley’s Green Collar Jobs’ study also states that the most important requirement of green collar companies in Berkeley is affordable, appropriately zoned (industrial) land that is free from incompatible residences.
On May 1, and appropriate day, please tell the City Council to do the right thing and place housing where it should be, on transit corridors and in residential neighborhoods, not in industrial zones.

WEBAIC Response To Another Misleading Bay Area Express Article

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:05:18 -0700

“The Battle Over Live-Work Communities in West Berkeley”
East Bay Express’ Continues It’s Destructive Campaign Against Berkeley’s
Blue & Green Collar Employees and Local & Sustainable Manufacturing Economy:
The Article: For all its support of the local culinary and retail economy, one might expect the East Bay Express to understand the value of retaining affordable habitat for working artists and good jobs in manufacturing and industry for working people - lynchpins of the 99%. Unfortunately, the opposite is true in this week’s Express article by editor Robert Gammon - “The Battle Over Live-Work Communities in West Berkeley”. When measured against the Express’s ongoing support of Occupy goals, the article’s editorial perspective is not only mystifying in the abstract, but destructive of on-the-ground societal equity the paper purports to champion.
In this latest installment of his ongoing campaign in support of a developer’s plans to install incompatible residents into West Berkeley’s industrial and artistic employment & productions zones, Mr. Gammon continues a pattern of critical factual omission, unchallenged assertions, and mischaracterization of issues and WEBAIC positions that diminish the article’s informative value and the Express’s reputation for fair and accurate reporting.

The Development: Doug Herst is seeking to turn his Peerless factory site into a mixed-use development. The site straddles West Berkeley’s Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (that doesn’t allow residential housing) and Mixed Use Residential Zone (that does). WEBAIC applauds Mr. Herst’s intention to bring jobs and housing to Berkeley. We do not applaud his intention to bust Berkeley’s zoning boundaries by putting residences into Berkeley’s largest industrial zone, an area created to be free from incompatible residences in order to assure a modest amount of land in the City reserved for sustainably making, recycling, distributing, and repairing the goods we use as a society. Mr. Herst presently owns property on his development site that is zoned for housing, yet persists in attempting to set the destructive precedent of opening up the modest 4% of Berkeley’s land base reserved for industry and arts production to housing. WEBAIC applauds Mr. Herst’s stated intention to host industry and artist studios, but placing traditional residences in industrial zones has been consistently shown, from SOMA to SOHO, to inflate property values and create conflicts leading to displacement of the very uses and jobs Mr. Herst claims to support.

Express Article Statements and WEBAIC Responses:
Clarification of two core misstatements in Mr. Gammon’s article::
WEBAIC has never opposed or “blocked” green tech expansion in West Berkeley - the opposite is true.
WEBAIC has never “blocked” housing on Master Use Permit development sites. In fact, we have supported the creation of hundreds of residential units on these sites on land where housing is presently allowed.
******************************************************************************************************************************
1. Express: “Despite the protestations of some local residents and businesses, the council opened portions of West Berkeley to companies involved in research and development — a move that recognized that the economy is shifting toward green-collar jobs.”
WEBAIC Response: WEBAIC was key to creating the policies and compromises allowing hundreds of thousands of existing sq. ft. of space (and millions of buildable sq. ft.) to be utilized for R&D. There is no requirement this space accommodate R&D, or that R&D be green tech -the Mayor has stated it will likely be biotech. WEBAIC is the West Berkeley organization with the most numerous companies and jobs in green collar fields. The City of Berkeley Green Collar Jobs Study concluded that preserving affordable, industrially zoned land, free from incompatible uses such as housing, was the most important requirement for green collar jobs.
******************************************************************************************************************************
2. Express: “Now the council is weighing a proposal to create live-work communities on two parcels in West Berkeley so that green-tech workers can live right next to their jobs.”
WEBAIC Response:
A.) Only one developer has stated an intention to build housing on a development site, not two.

B.) There is no requirement that businesses on these sites be green-tech. There is no requirement that proposed housing be set aside for on site workers, green-tech or no. The planned units are 300-600 sq ft, a questionable size to attract workers, let alone those with families and children. With thousands of housing units within walking and biking distance of Bayer in W. Berkeley now, only a very small percentage of Bayer’s 1200 employees live in Berkeley, let alone West Berkeley, with the City’s most affordable housing stock.

C.) The two sites discussed both already contain residentially-zoned property permitting housing. The developers are seeking to bust the prohibition on housing in industrial zones to open these relatively cheap lands to highly profitable residential development.
*****************************************************************************************************************************
3. Express: “The plan would also help the city meet the goals of its landmark Climate Change Action Plan, which aims to get commuters out of their cars.”
WEBAIC Response: In contradiction to Mr. Gammon’s assertion, the Environmental Impact Report for these projects states that the developments will increase greenhouse gas emissions and “conflict with the Clean Air Plan and criteria pollutants reduction measures” created by BAAQMD, MTC, and ABAG. The Goods Movement Report by Hausrath Economics for the MTC states that the displacement of industrial businesses and their employees by housing is “contrary to region’s Smart Growth Vision/FOCUS program” and will result in “more truck miles traveled and greater emissions of pollutants, including VOCs, CO, NOx, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10.”
*****************************************************************************************************************************
4. Express:”...the commission decided to allow the “intermingling” of housing with green tech on the two sites...”
WEBAIC Response: The Berkeley Planning Commission voted to allow housing to potentially “intermingle” with not only green tech, but all industrial uses allowed in the Mixed Use Light Industrial zone, a recipe for incompatibility and displacement of good jobs and industry.
*****************************************************************************************************************************
5. Express: “Some of the same groups that opposed green-tech R&D in West Berkeley are now trying to block the construction of dense housing on two large sites in the area.”
WEBAIC Response: A.). Continuously repeating the assertion that WEBAIC “opposed green tech R&D in West Berkeley” does not turn fiction into truth. WEBAIC has never opposed green tech R&D, has green tech R&D companies in its membership, and has green lighted millions of sq. ft. for its use. B.) WEBAIC has never opposed the creation of “dense housing on two large sites in the area”. The developments in question can build hundreds of units on their property now in appropriately zoned areas. WEBAIC staff Rick Auerbach told Mr. Gammon WEBAIC was open to appropriately sited densification of housing on residentially-zoned property on development sites, a critical fact not reported.
*****************************************************************************************************************************
6. Express: ...“Moreover, without the housing, green-tech workers will be forced to live elsewhere and commute to West Berkeley, worsening area traffic and parking problems, and increasing greenhouse-gas emissions. ... the number of available sites for housing on San Pablo appears to be limited.”
WEBAIC Response: No one will be “forced to live elsewhere.” Housing can be build on site now, just not on the industrially zoned sections. Beyond any specific site, West Berkeley’s industrial zones are surrounded by numerous opportunities for a large amount of housing creation along San Pablo Ave., University Ave., Fourth St, the Mixed Use Residential zone, and the core Residential-1A zone, all within one to four blocks of the industrial zones. San Pablo Ave. in Berkeley is two miles long, built as mostly one story where 4-5 stories are allowed, has many potential housing sites, and at least four new housing developments already permitted. Berkeley’s recent Planning Director Dan Marks said it clearly last year in his 2011 “Response to City Council Questions”: “The adjacent residential and commercial districts provide more than enough space for new housing within walking/biking distance of the three industrial zoning districts.” *****************************************************************************************************************************
7. Express: “Currently, city zoning laws allow Herst to build housing on his site — but only on certain sections of it. Herst says he needs the flexibility to build housing on other portions of his site, too, in order to integrate peoples' lives with their work.”
WEBAIC Response: People living a half a block or a block from their work in no way impedes the integration of peoples' lives with their work.
• *****************************************************************************************************************************
8. Express: "You can't throw all the housing the city is going to need onto San Pablo."
WEBAIC Response: With the vast majority of Berkeley land zoned residential and commercial, both allowing housing, “...all the housing the city is going to need” doesn’t have to be on San Pablo, and certainly doesn’t need to be on the small 4% of land comprising the industrial production and employment zones.

Please Attend Tuesday, May 1 City Council Public Hearing On Master Use Permits (MUP) For Large West Berkeley Sites

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:41:11 -0700

Support A Sustainable & Equitable 21st Century West Berkeley:
• Assure A Secure Place for “Makers”, Recycling, Distribution, Repair, & Arts:
- No Housing In The Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI)
• Assure A Healthy Environment For Residents & Workforce Housing:
-Support Housing In Mixed Use Residential & CW (S. Pablo) Zones On MUPs
-
     Sierra Club Takes Visionary Stand To Preserve Land In West Berkeley
     For Recycling/Reuse, Green Collar, & Manufacturing Activities & Jobs

On Tuesday, May 1st at 7:30pm, the City Council will hold the WB Project’s most important public hearing on the future of West Berkeley. This hearing will address the allowable size and nature of development on West Berkeley’s largest properties (at least 4 acres or 1 city block) in 5 of the 6 W. Berkeley zones (M, MM, MULI, MUR, CW – R1A excluded) from (and including) San Pablo Ave. to Frontage Rd..

The Master Use Permit being proposed to regulate these developments contains provisions being considered that would:

1.) Allow incompatible housing to locate in zones now preserved for production, likely displacing good jobs & local industrial and art economic activity, the underpinnings of the existing, successful, local industrial & arts economy bringing needed goods and services to Berkeley and the surrounding area’s population.
2.) Allow now-prohibited, incompatible, and potentially dangerous uses (pharmaceutical manufacturing, laboratories) to locate in the Mixed Use Residential (MUR) and C-W zones (W. Berkeley commercial corridors), putting families and businesses at potential risk and creating unnecessary liabilities.
3.) Allow many buildings of at least 75’ that City of Berkeley shadow studies show will overshadow vast swaths of West Berkeley for significant parts of the year. These buildings and their shadows will block solar access, block Hill views and Bay views from as high up as Euclid Ave., negatively impact wildlife and flora, create greater carbon emissions from the increased need for lighting and heating, and forever change the character of the recreational and wildlife habitat of Aquatic Park.

Sierra Club Takes Progressive Action On West Berkeley Master Use Permit Proposals: In concert with the national Sierra Club’s membership in the environmental/labor Blue Green Alliance, whose goal is “building a cleaner, fairer and more competitive American economy” by “expanding”...domestic manufacturing ...(and) recycling...”, the Northern Alameda County Sierra Club Conservation Committee and Executive Committee passed a forward thinking resolution recognizing the value of retaining land for green industry, a sustainable local manufacturing economy, and the jobs they provide in West Berkeley.
The Sierra Club resolution on the Master Use Permits before the City Council contains provisions calling for Aquatic Park protections, Traffic Demand Management solutions as part of development permits, residential development on San Pablo and University traffic corridors and in the MUR zone, and the requirement “to minimize conflicts, to protect inhabitants from noise, odors, and pollutants, and to retain and attract recycling/reuse activities, green collar and other manufacturing jobs, residential development should not be permitted in other industrial zones.

• WEBAIC POSITIONS For May 1st City Council Public Hearing •
1. No To Residences in Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone – (MULI)
-Yes To Keeping Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) for “Makers & Recyclers”

2. No To Allowing Incompatible Industrial Uses In the Mixed Use Residential Zone (MUR)
- Yes To Keeping the MUR Livable - Support existing zoning.

3. Support Existing Height Limits:
-Yes to expanded height for industrial equipment/processes requiring it “from grade.”

4. Only Support Development Near Aquatic Park That Doesn’t Degrade Wildlife Habitat                or Recreational Parkland

Please Attend: Tuesday, May 1 City Council Public Hearing on Master Use Permit (MUP) Provisions for Large Sites

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:43:51 -0700

Master Use Permit Provisions To Greatly Determine West Berkeley’s 21st CenturyEconomic&PhysicalCharacter–AddYourVoice

• NO To Residences In The Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone •
Keep Industrial Zones For Employment & Production In Industry, Art, & Science Keep Housing In Nearby Mixed Use Residential (MUR) & C-W (S. Pablo) Zones

On May 1 the City Council will open the Public Hearing on the provisions of the Master Use Permit (MUP). Although the Council will address the issue on May 8th and 15th, the hearing on the 1st is the most important opportunity to voice concerns. Council is expected to ask staff for specific proposal language on the 8th, meaning by that date their minds will likely already be made up - therefore the critical importance of coming to the hearing on May 1st.

The MUP - Profound Changes To West Berkeley’s & The City’s Economy, Equity, & Environment?
The Master Use Permit as proposed, for up to six (staff is proposing more) large sites of 4 + acres or one city block in the next 10 years, is projected to cover at least 30 acres of West Berkeley. The proposed scale and nature of the proposals – at least 3x the mass of the sites’ existing build outs, heights of 75-100’, putting now-prohibited residential uses into industrial zones, putting now-prohibited industrial uses into the Mixed Use Residential (MUR) and CW (S. Pablo) zones, and changing key provisions of the West Berkeley Plan and General Plan - will have a profound effect on the future of West Berkeley’s and the City’s livability, workability, economic and environmental sustainability, and efforts to achieve real equity in a time of dramatic inequality.

The Need For Sustainable Production & Employment Zones Free Of Incompatible Residences:
Berkeley needs a place where people can sustainably make, recycle, repair, and distribute the goods we need as a community and society- the bread, beer, bikes, clothing, furniture, sausage, cereal, posters, pots, speakers, shampoo, jewelry, life-saving drugs, lights, tofu, theater sets, windows, wine...etc. (tiny sample of West Berkeley Made). This sustainable production zone needs to be free from both physical and economic incompatibles created by residences. Residents complain about “makers” activities, resulting in their being forced out of areas intended for them. The high profit value of residences also results in this use out-competing “makers” for land, and ultimately results (through political pressure as we’re now seeing) in rezoning, resulting in the loss of good jobs, companies, and goods and services. This displacement is an incontrovertible truth happening throughout the nation, from SOMA to SOHO.

By instituting the West Berkeley Plan that reserves land (zones) for sustainably making things while prohibiting residents in these areas (providing residential opportunities in other zones), the City set an economically, environmentally, and equitably sustainable course from the late 80’s through 2005. With President Obama and the nation now recognizing the central importance of both manufacturing and economic equity, the West Berkeley Plan’s Goals can be seen as the prescient policies they are, even more so today than when created. On sustainability, the nation has yet to truly grasp the environmental case for making things not only in the US, but locally near both their ideal employee base and suppliers and customers, as outlined in “Goods Movement-Land Use Project For The San Francisco Bay Area”- by Hausrath Economics for The Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
West Berkeley Ideally Zoned NOW For Housing In Close Proximity To Employment Opportunities:
In the push to densifying our cities, we must be careful not to blindly degrade our local economies, our equity, and environment by following the latest land use fads, created and fueled by developers seeking windfall profits.To reduce our carbon footprint employees should live closer to where they work, and West Berkeley is now ideally zoned to accomplish both this and the environmentally sound goal of keeping the industrial zones as workshop, production and employment lands.

Listed from lower to higher allowable residential density, these West Berkeley districts are presently all zoned for residences: the large, central R1-A Residential Zone, the Mixed Use Residential Zone (MUR), the Fourth St. Commercial Zone, San Pablo Avenue, University Avenue, and Ashby Avenue (south side), are all zoned for residences. There is no place within the industrial zones more than a few blocks from a residential zone, providing ample untapped opportunities to build housing in easy walking proximity to employment, simultaneously creating the economic and public safety benefits of enlivened street life arising from residentially densifing major avenues.

Amazingly, this destructive “intermingling” zoning change allowing residences into the MULI industrial zone is being contemplated while the two developers seeking this already have enough residentially zoned land (either MUR, CW, or both) on their Master Use Permit sites to build hundreds of units of housing. To satisfy “design” inclinations, these developers want to put housing onto the industrially zoned portions of their MUP sites without regard to the larger, destructive effect this busting of the zoning will have on the present and future of Berkeley’s economy, equity, and environmental sustainability. Berkeley’s former Planning Director Dan Marks said it well and clearly last year in his document - “Response to City Council Questions”: “The adjacent residential and commercial districts provide more than enough space for new housing within walking/biking distance of the three industrial zoning districts.”

Residential Health Issues, Freeway Proximity, and Residences on MUPs:
The health of West Berkeley residents is a focus of the West Berkeley Plan. The freeway is considered the major source of particulate pollution in West Berkeley (the rail tracks contributing), while the freeway and the train tracks are major sources of ongoing noise concerns. Particularly on the potential Peerless factory MUP site, the Peerless Mixed Use Residential property that now permits housing is on the part of the MUP furthest east and furthest from the freeway and railroad. It is established that particulate plumes from freeways diminish with distance. That the portion of the Peerless property furthest from the freeway and tracks would result in the least health concerns (especially for children and seniors) relative to particulate matter and noise would seem to add to the compelling logic of building housing in the most healthful location – farthest from the freeway where housing is already encouraged.

Heights, For What? City staff are proposing heights in the MUPs of 75’, up to 100’ for needed industrial equipment and processes. WEBAIC supports the expanded height for those very rare instances where a manufacturer may need this allowance, but we believe this provision should be written as “height from grade” so as to be clear that the equipment or process would need to be measured from the ground, not from an upper floor.

The existing 45 height limit now green lights three to four story structures. As most potential MUP sites are built out to at most one or two stories, existing height limits plus the City’s new proposed Floor Area Ratio should allow a doubling to tripling of existing built space, a not insignificant amount of rentable square footage upon which base a reasonable return on investment. Beyond the provision for expanded industrial heights, the only reasons given throughout the West Berkeley Project for heights greater than now allowed are 1.) that’s what the developers want, and 2.) with greater heights comes greater economic value, a percentage of which the City can hypothetically capture as a “benefit” from the developer, to be used later for various City purposes. There have been no credible, verified claims of the need for 75’ heights for any use. It has been stated once or twice that R&D requires such heights, yet most existing R&D buildings in West Berkeley and Emeryville, even some newer ones, are one or two stories with the occasional three or four story structure. LBNL operates in such a structure today in West Berkeley.

So we must decide as a City whether heights that will block Bay and Hill views, diminish solar access, shadow parks, gardens, residences, and other commercial and industrial structures while driving up heating and lighting costs and GHG emissions, is worth the cost to provide developers with greater profits and the City with hoped-for, unassured, hypothetical future benefits.

WEBAIC POSITIONS:

1. No To Residences in Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone – (MULI)
Yes To Keeping Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) for “Makers”

2. No To Allowing Incompatible Industrial Uses In the Mixed Use Residential Zone (MUR)
Yes To Keeping the MUR Livable - Support existing zoning.

3. Support Existing Height Limits: Yes to expanded height for industrial equipment/processes requiring it “from grade.”

1. Only Support Development Near Aquatic Park That Doesn’t Degrade Wildlife Habitat or Recreational Parkland

Letter From A West Berkeley Manufacturer To The Berkeley Planning Commission And City Council:

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:04:07 -0700

Letter From A West Berkeley Manufacturer
To the Berkeley Planning Commission & City Council:

The following is a letter sent to the Planning Commission and City Council from Dan Baker, the second generation President and CEO of Polyseal Industries. Polyseal is a successful and growing manufacturing company in West Berkeley’s Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone, specializing in injection, transfer, and compression molding of elastomeric (rubber) products since 1974. By providing high quality, precision products and personal service Polyseal has not only survived the effects of globalization, but thrived as a 21st century manufacturer.

As part of a local network supply chain, Polyseal relies on a number of Berkeley, Oakland, and Bay Area machine shops, and fabricators, while supplying critical components for local biotech, genetic testing, bookbinding, and transportation companies, including track fasteners for B.A.R.T.. Polyseal also does business nationally and internationally, supplying products from its Berkeley plant to the following industries (partial list): Automotive, Audio Equipment, Biomedical, Chemical Mixing, Storage & Handling, Concrete Cutting & Coring, Construction, Food & Beverage, Gas Processing & Transportation, Health Care Products, Marine Equipment, Pneumatic Controls, Satellite Technology, Sewage & Water Treatment, Smog Testing, Vibration Absorption, Wine Vat Storage.

March 6th 2012

To: Members of the Berkeley Planning Commission;

As you contemplate the proposals before you regarding the large MUP sites, I would ask that you consider the points many of us, who operate manufacturing and service businesses in Berkeley, have been making over the course of many meetings just like this one. Over and over I, and others like me who run successful manufacturing businesses here in West Berkeley, have been trying our best to make our views clear, stating them in as many ways as we could in an attempt to get ourselves understood. Unfortunately, it looks as though our protests have fallen on deaf ears based on the alarming plans I have seen considered as part of the development of the MUP sites. What are our concerns?

If the zoning changes occur as city planners propose they will negatively impact those of us who are currently running successful businesses here. They will:
Allow incompatible uses and businesses that will intrude into areas that were supposed to be set aside for industrial processes, that may create noise or other effects that might be objectionable to some other users. As residential, and retail or office use increases the people who are involved with this intruding activities will find reason to complain about the industrial business that they move next to. This has happened so often in other areas it is common knowledge.
Make it more difficult to expand the physical size of existing operations, because the cost of land will be driven by R and D and laboratory markets, not manufacturing. This has already occurred with several properties I am familiar with. We would like to expand in the area, but all suitable properties are held by speculators who think if they wait long enough the properties will increase manyfold in value. There are properties that have been vacant for decades because of this mentality.
Reduce the critical mass of interrelated businesses that need each other to maintain a healthy business network of suppliers, service providers, and customers.
Create street congestion which will impact goods transportation.
The large parcels and numerous smaller parcels that are currently vacant are not vacant due to lack of demand from businesses already meeting the zoning requirements. They have in effect, been held aside by the owners (who decided they would change zoning laws to leverage their investments) in anticipation of skyrocketing values they anticipate the city will create with the zoning changes. This has been enabled by the Mayor and city planners with the support and prodding of big developers.
The city is creating a situation where they will disrupt and displace long standing businesses (such as ours which has been in the same location for 36 years) that employ blue collar workers, citizens of Berkeley, many of which do not have the benefit of college degrees and diplomas. These are businesses that have proven themselves as successful, growing concerns. Any business that has survived this past historic recession is most likely well managed and established in its respective markets.

As an existing business owner that employs Berkeley citizens, pays real property, business property, and federal state and local payroll taxes as well as sales tax and use taxes, I had the misconceived idea that our city would protect our interests, not those of developers who are trying to flip their properties for big profit, or those of future businesses that do not exist yet, and which will probably employ people who do not and will not live here. I guess I was naïve. The city should reevaluate to whom they owe allegiance and how they protect their resident businesses and citizens.

I was recently quoted in the Wall Street Journal saying that the city of Berkeley no longer values manufacturing. Maybe you don’t either. The fact is that manufacturing and the related services that support it are critical to the economic well being of our economy. If Berkeley drives out the over 100 manufacturing business that have managed to thrive in the modest area set aside for that purpose it will lose more than most people realize. It will lose economic diversity, and the opportunity to participate in the innovation and new business development that is correlated with manufacturing. And thousands of Berkeley manufacturing jobs would be lost.

If you have paying attention the past year or so, the rest of the country has been waking up to the importance of keeping manufacturing healthy in our country. In fact the manufacturing businesses are responsible for most of the economic recovery we have seen over the past year. Every day articles are being written about the critical importance of manufacturing in the US right now. In an excerpt (included below) from a report by Stephen J. Ezell and Robert D. Atkinson for The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation there are several key points made as to the importance of maintaining a healthy manufacturing economy:

Why is Manufacturing Important?
A robust manufacturing sector is indispensible to the health of the U.S. economy. While manufacturing is not the only sector that contributes to a nation’s international competitiveness, it is impossible for large economies like the United States’ to remain competitive without a viable manufacturing sector. Manufacturing plays a critical role in the U.S. economy for five key reasons:
ν It will be extremely difficult for the United States to balance its trade account without a healthy manufacturing sector.

ν Manufacturing is a key driver of employment growth and source of high-paying jobs for individuals at many skill levels.

ν Manufacturing is the principal source of R&D and innovation activity.

ν Manufacturing and services sectors are inseparable and complementary.

ν Manufacturing is vital to U.S. national security.

Manufacturing generates significant employment spillovers in other sectors
Most economists agree that manufacturing has a large multiplier effect, with each job in manufacturing leading to the creation of from two to five additional jobs elsewhere in the economy.21 The Economic Policy Institute finds that manufacturing jobs have a robust employment multiplier of 2.90, compared to 1.63 in business services or 1.66 in transportation.22 A more recent June 2009 Milken Institute report, Manufacturing 2.0, finds that for every job created in manufacturing, 2.5 jobs are created in other sectors.23 Hans Zobel, former CEO of Festo, a German manufacturer of electrical automation technology, notes that recent research from Germany finds that a job in a modern, smart manufacturing factory supports 5.2 additional jobs throughout the economy.24 High-tech manufacturing industries have even greater multipliers. Electronic computer manufacturing has a multiplier effect of 16 jobs, meaning 15 other jobs are dependent on one job created in that industry.25
Likewise, manufacturing has a substantial impact in terms of output, with an estimated additional $1.40 in output from other sectors being generated for every $1.00 in final sales of manufactured products.26 The only other industries coming even close to this are information services; agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; and construction, each slightly over $1.00.

Berkeley should not sacrifice the last small area (only 4% of the total city land area) that is supporting a vibrant network of businesses. The high density residential projects that are being considered for the MUP sites should not be placed in the West Berkeley industrial zones. They should be built in areas already zoned for such uses. Sacrificing the long term economic diversity and strength that West Berkeley now provides, for the short term tax revenues the city hopes to get from developers and the businesses those developers have guessed will be viable for the next few years just does not make sense. And it is disservice to citizens of Berkeley.

As you consider the MUP sites please do not make decisions that will kill the successful industry that is there now.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Daniel Baker
President/CEO
Poly Seal Industries, Inc.

Planning Commission Violates Staff Pledge, Approves Changing WB Plan To Allow Provision Destructive of Industry, Manufacturing, & Arts: Allowing Housing In The Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:58:23 -0700

West Berkeley Project Mantra Changes From “Make Room For R&D” To “Give Developers Windfall Profits By Putting Housing In Industrial Zone - Too Bad About Displacing Industry & Good Jobs”

œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
All Master Use Permit Provisions Expected At City Council In May
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
WB Plan, Ex-Planning Director Marks, Planning Cannon, Common Sense, Citizens, All Say:
- No Housing in Industrial Zones – Keep This Land for Sustainable Production & Good Jobs

Planning Commission Dominated by Real Estate-Associated Interests Says:
- Let Developers Put Housing On Master Use Permit Industrial Land? – Sure.
On March 21st the Planning Commission did what Planning staff at the outset of the West Berkeley Project pledged not to do: Change the West Berkeley Plan to allow housing in the industrial zones. Contradicting new staff claims that this doesn’t violate West Berkeley Plan Goals, WEBAIC research and testimony has revealed fourteen WB Plan and General Plan Goal and Policy references to avoiding land use incompatibilities by targeting industry to industrial zones (MULI, MM,M) and residences to C-W and MUR zones. Both Plans are unequivocal that these uses should be in separate zones. Behind all the talk over the last few years that the WB Project is all about creating an adequate amount of space for clean tech R&D startups and spinoffs from LBNL, the push to put housing in the Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) zone is revelatory as to real motivations behind the rezoning.

An architect previously employed by a developer who is now trying to change the West Berkeley Plan to allow housing in the Mixed Use Light Industrial zone was put on the Planning Commission for the March 21st vote on this provision: Although the MUP is applicable to a number of 4+ acre sites, at immediate issue are two large, multi-block Master Use Permit (MUP) sites (12-13 acres total) - the former Peerless Lighting factory property and Wareham Properties’ Fantasy (Zaentz Media) site. The developers of these sites are actively seeking changes to the Plan and zoning allowing them to build residences on industrial land, despite the fact that both sites already have property zoned for housing. Astonishingly, Councilmember Gordon Wozniak appointed as temporary Planning Commissioner Erik Mitiken, an architect previously employed by the Peerless developer to work on his project. Not astonishingly, Mr. Mitiken voted for a provision benefiting the Peerless development - changing the West Berkeley Plan to allow housing in MULI.

Housing Density Bonanza End Run?
If Master Use Permit developers don’t get greater residential density on industrial land as part of the WB Project proposals to alter existing zoning provisions, they plan an end run by requesting a change of zoning designation on whole portions of their MUPs from Mixed Use Light Industrial (MULI) to Commercial West Berkeley (C-W), allowing not only more housing on the industrial land, but also retail.
Two facts lie at the core of any discussion of housing on Master Use Permit sites: 1.) The Master Use Permit as proposed in the West Berkeley Plan never contemplated housing as an allowable use on an industrially-zoned MUP site. This is an entirely new construct of the Planning Department and developers working curiously toward the same goal, with the genesis of these proposals obscure. 2.) The most profit that could be made on any piece of industrial property would come from housing. A very ballpark example has the approximately 300+ units proposed on the Peerless factory property being sold as condos for a not unrealistic $300,000+ apiece, resulting in a total value near $100,000,000. Only a portion of this would be profit, but the same square footage built out as manufacturing, R&D, or office would not bring nearly this amount.

WB Project - A Real Estate Bonanza: Thus we’re seeing a heavy-handed push for maximum residential density on industrial land that, not coincidentally, was purchased at industrial land prices greatly discounted compared to what the same acreage of residentially-zoned property would cost. Additionally, most of one site was bought at industrial prices decades ago. The cliché “real estate bonanza” hasn’t seen much use the last few years, but a proposal permitting the cheapest property in Berkeley to be utilized for the most expensive development allowable in the city – tall, high-end residential buildings, appears to qualify.

On March 21st the Planning Commission had the choice of reaffirming its 2011 vote to maintain existing MUR densities or drastically increase them by raising height limits from 35’ to 75’. Since the Commission had voted in 2011 to allow an MUP to “float” its housing allowance from its MUR and C-W portions to its MULI portions, the 21st vote was actually about allowing developers greater housing densities on the industrial portions of their MUPs. The Commission voted on the 21st to reaffirm their position not allowing this density increase. Unfortunately, at the same meeting they voted to to change the West Berkeley Plan, reaffirming their proposal most fundamentally destructive of industrial/artisan habitat - allowing developers to “float” housing from the MUR and CW portions of their MUPs into their MULI portions (at existing densities).

WEBAIC appreciates the Planning Commission’s vote not to increase densities, but this vote was almost certainly taken with an awareness of the developers’ backup plan (should the Planning Commission deny this proposal for increased density) already unofficially broached to City officials: to petition the Planning Commission and City Council to change zoning on large parts of their properties from Mixed Use Light Industrial (MULI) to C-W, Commercial West Berkeley (same as San Pablo), allowing not only much greater residential density, but regional retail to boot. In other words: Front door closed? We got a key to the back.

Not content with the large profits that can be made from turning their MULI property into R&D, offices, manufacturing, and arts uses, and their MUR and CW property into residential and retail, the developers want to put large scale residential and retail on the relatively small amount of industrial land the City has presciently reserved for good paying jobs (for its least advantaged citizens) at companies locally manufacturing, distributing, repairing, and recycling the goods we use.

WEBAIC Compromises Greenlighting Hundreds of Thousands of Sq Ft for R&D Not Enough For Developers and City? Denials That Housing In Industrial Zone Driving WB Project Revealed As Empty.
Lest we not forget, the West Berkeley Project was purposed as saving the planet by providing more space for green and clean tech R&D start ups and spin-offs from LBNL (the East Bay Green Corridor). To this end, WEBAIC compromised and allowed 270,000 sq ft of industrially-protected wholesale trade and warehouse space to be used for R&D and agreed to allow R&D to occupy the hundreds of thousands of square feet of industrially-protected space on Master Use Permit sites. It’s now clear that this was never going to be enough. Behind all the City staff pledges and protestations throughout the West Berkeley Project that high-end housing in the industrial zones was not driving the MUP process, curiously (as Alice said), here we are once again down the rabbit hole.

Expanded Heights For Essential Industrial Equipment and Processes:
The Planning Commission clarified that the proposed 100’ heights “For Essential Industrial Equipment and Processes” are just for that purpose, but a loophole still exists that needs to be plugged. Being the originator of this concept within the WB Project, WEBAIC has consistently supported expanded heights for manufacturing equipment and processes absolutely requiring them, but it is critical that this provision be described as “expanded height as needed from grade” so a 100’ building can’t be required because
someone decided to place a 60’ high tank on a building’s 4th fourth floor.

WEBAIC Positions for Planning Commission Public Hearing Tonight

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:20:04 -0700

Keep Industrial Zones for Industry, Artisans, & Artists

Support Housing In Mixed Use Residential & S.Pablo Zones, NOT the “Productions” Zones. Obama and the nation support a US manufacturing renaissance while Berkeley mulls marching backward - promoting industrial displacement with 1-2000 new housing units in the MULI Industrial Zone, More Than Allowed On San Pablo.
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
WEBAIC POSITIONS:
1. No To Residences in Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone – (MULI)
Yes To Keeping Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) for Industry & Artisans/Artists To Make Things

2. No To Allowing Incompatible Industrial Uses In the Mixed Use Residential Zone (MUR)
Yes To Keeping the MUR Livable - Support existing zoning that locating pharmaceutical
manufacturing, laboratories, and R&D in industrial zones & out of MUR.

3. Support Existing Height Limits in Mixed Use Light Industrial & Mixed Use Residential Zones
Support expanded heights only for industrial equipment and processes requiring expanded height from
ground level (grade).

4. Support Only Development Near Aquatic Park That Doesn’t Degrade Wildlife
Habitat or Recreational Parkland.
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
Further Explanation of Position 1: No Residences in Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone – (MULI)
• Industry & Artisan/Arts are incompatible with residential housing. Placing housing among industrial uses creates unnecesary conflicts historically leading to the loss of the industry and arts and the good jobs provided. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report calls this displacement a Significant and Unavoidable Impact and admits this could occur if this proposal is adopted.
• Berkeley Planning Director Dan Marks (recently retired) said this separation, a key component of the West Berkeley Plan, "is one of the fundamentals of zoning." This proposal is a serious, fundamental violation of the West Berkeley Plan’s Goals and Policies, and a violation of Planning staff’s pledge to “Avoid housing in the manufacturing zones” and to “Maintain West Berkeley Plan Goals and Policies”.
• With the US focused on supporting sustainable manufacturing and industry, Berkeley shouldn’t be marching in the opposite direction and pressuring these sectors, particularly while the two proposed Master Use Permit developments seeking this change already have MUR and CW property zoned for hundreds of residential units.

Industry, Arts, & WEBAIC Say to the City of Berkeley: Keep Incompatible Housing Off “Workshop” Lands!

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:37:58 -0700

City of Berkeley Master Use Permit Proposals Say:
We Don’t Care. We Want Developers To Put Housing Wherever They Want on MUPs, Even If It Forces Out Industry & Arts and They Already Have MUP Land They Can Put Housing On.

œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ

City Proposes Greater Housing Density on Manufacturing Lands Than on San Pablo!
Keep Industrial Land for Industry/Arts, No Residential Towers in MULI Industrial Zone,
Keep Incompatible Uses Out of Mixed Use Residential Zone, No 75’ Heights in MUR

œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ

March 21 Planning Commission Public Hearing On Master Use Permits: The purpose of the 3/21 PC Meeting is to take comments on Master Use Permit proposals contained in the West Berkeley Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). You do not need to be an expert on this document to speak. Any issues related to the Master Use Permit, including the 4 points below, can be addressed. WEBAIC urges everyone who cares about the workability and livability of West Berkeley and the City to attend this hearing on.
While WEBAIC supports the appropriate development of large sites, we seek to assure that MUP entitlements don’t come with provisions undermining the West Berkeley Plan’s central goal – to maintain a mixed use, West Berkeley economy through retention of its industrial and artisan/arts sectors. This goal, and that of keeping the Mixed Use Residential zone livable, are both threatened by MUP proposals that can be addressed on the 21rst.

No Need For Destructive MUP Entitlements - Proposals Violate MUP Purpose, WB Plan, Zoning Canon:
The two projected MUP projects, Peerless and Fantasy now have large amounts of industrial and residentially-zoned land. Locating these uses where they’re now permitted 1). reflects rational, accepted land use policy (stated by recently retired Planning Director Marks, 2). doesn’t violate the West Berkeley Plan, 3.) doesn’t threaten industrial/arts uses or residents. The City admitted in the SEIR that allowing migration of these uses would create Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts due to a real possibility of industrial/arts displacement and negative effects of odors and noise on residents.

1. Keep Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone for Industry/Arts and Mixed Use Residential & CW Zone for Housing.
2. Keep pharmaceutical manufacturing, labs, & R&D in MULI/MM/M industrial zones, out of MUR.
3. Industrial development at Aquatic Park should not have negative impacts on wildlife habitat recreation.
4. Maintain existing heights and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in Industrial zones and MUR zone.

Strong Testimony From Companies, Studios, and Neighbors at 3/7 PC Meeting:

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:05:34 -0700

“Keep Industrial Land for Industry/Arts, No Residential Towers in MULI Industrial Zone,
Keep Incompatible Uses Out of Mixed Use Residential Zone, No 75’ Heights in MUR”
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ

Thanks to the company owners, workers, artists, artisans, and neighbors that came out last week (3/7) to speak for keeping their vibrant West Berkeley economies and neighborhoods intact. While the City is studying proposals that they admit (in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report –SEIR) have the real possibility of displacing industry and arts, obstructing vistas, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and greatly shadowing a large part of West Berkeley (south of University Ave.), citizens and businesses expressed their clear interest in maintaining policies that keep their neighborhoods livable and workable and don’t introduce destabilizing uses to either industrial or residential zones.

March 21 Planning Commission Public Hearing On Master Use Permits: The 3/7 Planning Commission (PC) meeting consisted of two parts: 1.) a presentation by staff on the Master Use Permit provisions (detailed in the WB Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report–SEIR) being studied for possible implementation, and 2.) comments by the community on these provisions and the SEIR’s adequacy. On March 21 the Planning Commission will hold its official Public Hearing on this issue. Once the Commission votes, City Council is slated to address the issue in May. The Council’s deliberations and actions can be greatly influenced by the extent of public participation at the Planning Commission, even if the majority of planning commissioners aren’t responsive to the public. WEBAIC urges everyone who cares about the workability and livability of West Berkeley (and the City) to attend the hearing on the 21rst.

The West Berkeley Project’s Two Phases – What’s At Stake In Phase Two: From WEBAIC’s perspective, the previous phase of the West Berkeley Project was critical to assuring that policies (industrial & arts zoning protections) providing adequate habitat for these uses were retained. The present phase focuses on assuring that unprecedented, large-scale developments proposed on large sites don’t come with provisions undermining the West Berkeley Plan’s central goal – to maintain a mixed use West Berkeley economy through retention of its industrial and artisan / arts sectors. This goal, and that of keeping the Mixed Use Residential zone livable, are both threatened by proposals before the Planning Commission on the 21rst.

Proposed Developments: No Need For New, Destructive Entitlements + Proposals Violate MUP Purpose:
The proposed Master Use permit is a new name for the Large Site Development Permit (LSDP) found in the West Berkeley Plan, which details the purpose of the permit: “These large sites...are of a scale where they have a major impact on the area around them, and noticeable impacts on West Berkeley as a whole. They also may require modification of the uses and development standards in a district to facilitate a feasible large scale project.” Both proposed projects, Peerless and Fantasy, already have large amounts of industrial and residentially-zoned land. Neither the ability to move their residences into the industrially-zoned parts of their properties or now-prohibited industrial uses into the residentially-zoned parts of their properties are required to make these projects feasible. The provisions allowing this are a violation of the West Berkeley Plan section the MUP/LSDP is based upon. These provisions also violate West Berkeley Plan Goals and Policies created to protect industrial/art and residential uses from intrusion of incompatible uses that could compromise their ability to maintain functional working and living environments.
We hope to see you on March 21 so we can say well into the future that, West Berkeley Works!

Planning Commission Mtg on Master Use Permits

Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:28:32 -0800

Support Integrity of Industrial Zones
for Industry, Artisans, & Artists

Support Housing In Allowable, Mixed Use Residential & S.Pablo Zones,
NOT Industrial Zones Where City Admits Housing Pressures Industry & Arts OUT

Nation, Obama Support Manufacturing Renaissance While
City Proposes 1,304+ residential units in Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
Master Use Permit Proposals To Be Discussed at Planning Commission March 7:
• Put Housing (up to 1,304+ units) in Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) on 4 MUPs
• Put now-prohibited industrial uses into Mixed Use Residential neighborhoods
• Abrogate accepted stakeholder/City agreement for 6 MUPs in 10 years with new proposal
allowing development of maximum 9 MUPs anytime
• Permit 75’ heights for residential towers in MULI, MUR, and CW (S.Pablo)
• Near doubling of housing density in MUR & C- W portions of 4 MUP sites
• Permit 100’ heights for “essential industrial equipment and processes”
• Permit 75 - 100’ heights adjacent to Aquatic Park bird habitat
WEBAIC Positions:
1. Support Existing Zoning Provisions That Keep Industrial Zones for Industry & Arts & Housing Out.
Reasons:

A. Residents complain about industrial/artisan/art activities (noise, trucks, late hours, etc.), forcing these uses out over time. This has happened wherever these incompatibilities exist and is already a problem in West Berkeley. Placing over 1,300 housing units (developer plans point toward 2000 units) is an extreme escalation of this conflict.

B. Housing inflates land prices, over time creating land value pressures that lead to the loss of industry and arts/artisans*. *Residential/Industrial Land Use Conflict – A Report for the Community Redevelopment Agency of LA

C. The West Berkeley Plan unequivocally prohibits housing in the industrial zones for the above reasons and even the new SEIR admits these “significant and unavoidable impacts” could happen should this housing be permitted.

D. The two Master Use Permit developments being seriously contemplated, Doug Hurst’s Peerless project and Wareham’s Fantasy (Saenz) site, already contain MUR and/or CW property that can accommodate hundreds of new housing units in close proximity to whatever commercial or industrial uses they ultimately have. There is absolutely NO reason housing should not be built on these appropriate and allowable locations (and instead be placed in the industrial zones to pressure productive activity and good jobs.

E. In a 2010 East Bay Express article, Berkeley Planning Director (recently retired) explained his opposition to housing in industrial zones:: "We do not believe that residential uses should be allowed in the manufacturing area." Marks contends that homes will drive up the value of land and eventually make West Berkeley unaffordable for traditional blue-collar businesses. He also worries that West Berkeley will lose its industrial base over time when new residents complain about being next to manufacturing companies. Keeping the two separate, he said, "is one of the fundamentals of zoning." He further explained his reasoning in a document given to the City Council.

Planning Director Marks’ “Response to Council Questions”: What is the reason for discouraging (or not encouraging) housing development in West Berkeley?
a. The adjacent residential and commercial districts provide more than enough space for new housing within walking/biking distance of the three industrial zoning districts.
b. Residential land uses often pressure nearby industrial activities to operate as if they were within a residential district, such as reducing noise, hours of operation and delivery activities, thereby making it increasingly difficult for industrial uses to succeed. Manufacturing/industrial users tend to not make long term investments in expensive facilities that may have long-term conflicts with residential neighbors.
c. Goal 2 of the West Berkeley Plan encourages channeling industrial and office uses into the three industrial districts and housing into the MUR, C-W, and Residential districts.

• Support existing policies that keep pharmaceutical manufacturing, laboratories,
and R&D in the MULI, MM, and M zones (vast majority of West Berkeley land) and
out of MUR zone containing sensitive receptors.

• Support already accepted stakeholder/City agreement for 6 Mops in 10 years,
not new proposal to allow 9+ MUPs anytime.

• Support existing height limits. Support expanded heights only for industrial
equipment and processes that require additional height for verified functional needs.

• Support industrial development near Aquatic Park that does not negatively impact
wildlife habitat or recreational parkland.

Critical March 7 Planning Commission Meeting on Master Use Permit Master Use Permit (for Large Sites) Slated to Cover Large Portion of Industrial Zones

Thu, 1 Mar 2012 21:25:43 -0800

Obama Pushes Industrial Renaissance... City of Berkeley Proposes 1304 residential units in Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone, Threatening Manufacturing, Industrial, and Artisan Economy & Jobs
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
City Admits Housing Proposal:
Violates West Berkeley Plan, Could “Discourage Industrial Activity”, and Result in
“Significant Environmental, Economic, and Social Impacts”, Pushes Ahead Anyway.
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ

Master Use Permit Proposals To Be Discussed at Planning Commission March 7:
• Put Housing (up to 1304 units) in Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) on 4 MUPs
• Put now-prohibited industrial uses into Mixed Use Residential neighborhoods
• Abrogate accepted stakeholder/City agreement for 6 MUPs in 10 years
with new proposal allowing development of maximum 9 MUPs anytime
• Permit 75’ heights for residential towers in MULI, MUR, and CW (S.Pablo)
• Near doubling of housing density in MUR & C- W portions of 4 MUP sites
• Permit 100’ heights for “essential industrial equipment and processes”
• Permit 75 - 100’ heights adjacent to Aquatic Park bird habitat
The final Master Use Permit (MUP) phase of the West Berkeley Project will come before the Planning Commission March 7th for discussion and on March 21 for a Public Hearing. This permit (covering at least 9 sites from 4 to 45 acres) will cover a significant percentage of West Berkeley’s industrial zones and greatly affect West Berkeley’s character, the future economic viability of its industry and arts uses, and the residents of the Mixed Use Residential Zone.

In the new Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) that the City was forced to do in response to a suit by the Sustainable West Berkeley Alliance, the City studied the potential environmental impacts of the MUP proposals. This document projects that new “significant environmental impacts” on greenhouse gases, views, odors, shadows, and noise could result from the MUP proposals. Additionally, negative “economic and social impacts” and “increasing land values (that could) make it less financially feasible to successfully operate industrial businesses in West Berkeley” could result from the new MUP proposals.

Critical Master Use Permit Proposals at Planning Commission March 7:
• Put Housing (up to 533 units) in Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) on 4 MUPs
Recently Retired Berkeley Planning Director Makes Case For Keeping Industrial Zones Industrial:
The physical separation of industrial and residential uses for the benefit of both is a canon of good planning policy that recently retired Planning Director Dan Marks fully supported. Under his direction, in February 2011 Mr. Marks released a document titled “West Berkeley Project – Response to Council Questions” that addressed this issue:
Question 4. What is the reason for discouraging (or not encouraging) housing development in West Berkeley? We are creating jobs and want people close to their jobs.
Response:
a. The adjacent residential and commercial districts provide more than enough space for new housing within walking/biking distance of the three industrial zoning districts.
b. Residential land uses often pressure nearby industrial activities to operate as if they were within a residential district, such as reducing noise, hours of operation and delivery activities, thereby making it increasingly difficult for industrial uses to succeed. Manufacturing/industrial users tend to not make long term investments in expensive facilities that may have long-term conflicts with residential neighbors.
c. Goal 2 of the West Berkeley Plan encourages channeling industrial and office uses into the three industrial districts and housing into the MUR, C-W, and Residential districts. The MUR zoning district was designed to ease transition from all industrial areas to all residential areas, and has a very low housing density standard for that reason.

WB Plan and WB Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Oppose Housing In Industrial Zones:
Although the West Berkeley Project Draft Environmental Impact Report states that "uses that might lead to conflicts with existing uses, such as housing, are not proposed to be allowed under the West Berkeley Project”, and the West Berkeley Plan MULI Land Use Concept states that "Residential uses are not permitted in the district", the City of Berkeley is moving forward with this destructive proposal to allow as much as 533 housing units into the Mixed Use Light Industrial District. The West Berkeley Plan is repeatedly unequivocal in it aims and policies to separate residential and industrial uses into separate zoning districts, i.e. “The Plan's land use concept is designed to support its multisectoral, balanced economic development approach, by clearly targeting different locations for different uses”.

MUP Developers Already Have Land Zoned for Residences – Don’t Need Industrial Land:
This destructive change in policy is being driven by the desire of City government to accommodate two developers’ wishes to build a large amount of housing on their industrially-zoned properties, even though both of these potential MUP properties contain acreage in either or both Mixed Use Residential (MUR) and Commercial West Berkeley (C-W) zones, where residential development is already allowed and encouraged. At a time when the US is strongly supporting the renewed viability of industry and manufacturing, Berkeley should not be blindly marching in the opposite direction and putting its vital industrial economy and the good jobs of its citizens at risk by this short-sited policy.

West Berkeley Plan zoning policies have resulted in a successful mixed-use economy and culture in West Berkeley that supports a robust industrial and artisan sector. We already have numerous examples of pressure upon industrial and artisan uses from residential encroachment. City government should not be seeking to exacerbate this problem and put at risk the largest source of good jobs that now exist for the significant percentage of our City’s and region’s population without a college education.

• Put now-prohibited industrial uses into Mixed Use Residential neighborhoods
The corollary to not putting housing in industrial zones is not to put incompatible industrial uses into zones that allow housing. This policy has worked admirably until now, but the City is now proposing to allow the siteing of pharmaceutical manufacturing, laboratories, and R&D (almost all of which use potentially toxic materials and organisms) into the Mixed Use Residential Zone, a zone filled with the elderly, families with children and schools. It is in the long-term interests of industry to minimize conflicts with residents. The proposed policy moves us in exactly the wrong direction on this issue.

• Abrogate accepted stakeholder/City agreement for 6 MUPs in 10 years with new proposal allowing development of maximum 9 MUPs anytime.
A compromise that took years to reach and was agreed to by all WB Project parties - development of 6 MUPs in 10 years - has been replaced by a proposal to allow a maximum of 9 MUPs to be developed at anytime. The 6 in 10 year agreement allowed a huge amount of square footage (millions of square feet) to be developed rapidly, yet created a timeframe that allowed the City to simultaneously asses changes brought on this development as it was occurring, lessening the possibilities of being overwhelmed by unanticipated effects. This is a rational policy that should be retained.

• Height: Permit 75’ heights for residential towers in MULI, MUR, and CW (S.Pablo/Ashby) & Permit 100’heights for “essential industrial equipment and processes”.
WEBAIC has consistently supported the existing height limits as being adequate with exceptions for greater heights where those heights were absolutely essential for industrial equipment or processes. WEBAIC supports the position of the MUR residential neighbors and the conclusion of the WB Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) that 75’ heights could significantly shadow residences and parks. Throughout the WB Project process WEBAIC has posited that the increased height limits were proposed to eventually facilitate residential towers in the industrial zones. Unfortunately, the latest City proposals verify this belief.
• Near doubling of housing density in MUR & C- W portions of 4 MUP sites
The proposed density increase is only being accomplished by the drastic raising of the height limits of 28’/35’ in the MUR to 75’ and 45’ to 75’-100’ in the industrial zones. Except for verified industrial process and equipment needs these heights are unnecessary.

• Permit 75 - 100’ heights adjacent to Aquatic Park bird habitat
WEBAIC believes that industrial development should not negatively impact the wildlife habitat and resources of Aquatic Park. Development at these heights adjacent to this wildlife habitat and park resources is poor policy and should not be allowed.

City Reconvenes West Berkeley Project Please Participate

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:52:59 -0800

Critical Master Use Permit Proposals at Planning Commission March 7:
- Put Housing (up to 1304 units) in Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) on 4 MUPs
- Put now-prohibited industrial uses into Mixed Use Residential neighborhoods
- Abrogate accepted stakeholder/City agreement for 6 MUPs in 10 years
with new proposal allowing development of maximum 9 MUPs at anytime
- Permit 75’ heights for residential towers in MULI, MUR, and CW (S.Pablo)
- Near doubling of housing density in MUR & C- W portions of 4 MUP sites
- Permit 100’ heights for “essential industrial equipment and processes”
- Permit 75 - 100’ heights (with mitigations) adjacent to Aquatic Park bird habitat
The first phase of the West Berkeley Project, including the issue of re-use of industrially-protected space by R&D, was resolved last July through a compromise between the City Council and WEBAIC. The second, final phase of the WB Project - dealing with large, Master Use Permit sites - will recommence on March 7th at the Planning Commission at the N. Berkeley Senior Ctr.

In 2011, SWBA, the Sustainabile West Berkeley Alliance (that did not include WEBAIC) sued the City of Berkeley on grounds that the West Berkeley Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) didn’t adequately address the West Berkeley Project’s potentially significant environmental biological impacts upon Aquatic Park, its shadowing of public spaces and Mixed Use Residential zone (MUR) residences, and its placing of incompatible industrial uses into the MUR. Instead of defending the WB Project EIR in court, the City responded by doing a Supplemental Environmental Report (SEIR) addressing SWBA’s concerns, essentially validating SWBA’s EIR inadequacy claims.

In doing the new Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the City Council unfortunately took the opportunity to study implementing several new, negative WB Project provisions. In keeping with his belief that housing in the industrial zones was poor policy, Planning Director Dan Marks took the positive, rational step of removing such a proposal from the WB Project. The City Council took the opportunity of Mr. Marks’ subsequent retirement and the SEIR to reverse this position and place the destructive possibility of building hundreds of residences in the industrial zones back on the table. Council also took the SEIR opportunity to study raising maximum heights from 75’ to 100’ and hugely increasing residential density in MUR and Commercial West Berkeley (CW-San Pablo) zones (that could “float” into the MULI). Additionally, a compromise agreed to by all WB Project parties that took years to reach (development of 6 MUPs in 10 years) has been replaced by a proposal to allow a maximum of 9 MUPs to be developed at anytime.

This final phase of the West Berkeley Project (which should be concluded by July) will have an enormous impact on determining West Berkeley’s, and the City’s, physical, economic, environmental, and cultural landscape for decades. Come help the City get on board the national imperative to reinvigorate making things in Berkeley & the US. Please attend the March 7th Planning Commission meeting and lend your voice to this important discussion about our community’s future.

Majority Takes Final Vote For Compromise To Open A Reasonable Amount Of Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space To R&D

Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:12:34 -0700

 THE LARGER CONTEXT
Berkeley Political Realities, the WEBAIC Mission, & Our Future As A Country
(& City) That Sustainably Makes, Distributes, Repairs, & Recycles The Goods It Uses
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ

Council Votes For Compromise On Putting R&D Into Protected Wholesale/Warehouse Space
After three and a half years of City of Berkeley Planning Department effort focused on removing West Berkeley’s industrial protection policies, the City Council majority voted in July for a compromise resolving this contentious issue. The final compromise, passed by an 8 to 1 vote, resulted from negotiations between WEBAIC and key Council members. The compromise allows a maximum of 270,000 sq ft of industrially-protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space (150,000 sq ft occupied + 120,000 sq ft vacant as of 8/1/2011) in the Mixed Use Light Industrial (MULI) and Mixed Manufacturing (MM) zones that was previously off-limits to R&D be occupied by R&D uses. The agreement sunsets in 5 years, opening all Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space in the 2 zones to R&D with a provision that Council reexamine the issue before this date.

The Compromise Vs. The Alternative:
Although WEBAIC does not believe this compromise represents the ideal policy to support our sustainable, local-serving, industrial base that now provides almost 7000 family-wage jobs (most of which don’t require a college education), the compromise represents a drastic improvement over Planning Commission, Planning Department, and developer West Berkeley Project proposals that would have resulted in opening ALL the millions of square feet of occupied and productive, protected Wholesale Trade, Warehouse, and Manufacturing space to R&D. In fact, until late in the West Berkeley Project process, staff proposed, and the Planning Commission looked favorably upon, removing ALL protections for All industrial uses, including manufacturing.

Over the last four years in this newsletter and public testimony we’ve detailed the problems with these destructive proposals, the central one being that R&D has clearly been identified as a “high value” use that creates “market pressures” expected to displace industrial uses over time* WEBAIC has consistently supported the robust location of R&D in West Berkeley, but believes a large R&D expansion must, and can, be achieved without displacing the existing industrial PDRR and artisan/arts economy. We believe the conditions for this have been achieved by providing the square footage of the present compromise + the millions of sq ft available for R&D on Master Use Permit sites + the millions of unprotected West Berkeley sq ft presently allowed to be utilized by R+D.

After years of intensive WEBAIC organizing, education, and testimony, the industrial and artisan community and its labor and community supporters were able to successfully have the above-mentioned radical proposals removed from consideration. This set the stage for the present compromise that, beyond being an enormous improvement over earlier proposals, is also a significant improvement over the March 2011 council-majority-approved proposal that would have opened protections on ALL Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space in the MULI and MM zones now. In a statement on how the reality of initial intentions to vastly abrade industrial protections came up against the efforts by our community to retain them, the very recently retired Planning Department Director told WEBAIC staff: “We got what we could get.” Had the compromise not been achieved and alternative proposals approved, the history of gentrification in industrial zones nationwide has shown that over time such policies would result in the loss of a major part of Berkeley’s industrial economy. While not widely understood and minimized by City officials & developers throughout this process, the maintenance of this successful industrial economy is essential to achieving Berkeley’s triple bottom line goals in the areas of the economy, the environment, and community equity.

MUPs - R&D/Upcoming Schedule:
The recent compromise is separate from Master Use Permit (MUP/ large site) proposals. On MUPs there has been agreement between WEBAIC, the Planning Commission, staff, & Council members that industrially protected property on six MUP sites (over ten years) can be utilized for R&D. Other critical MUP issues of height, FAR, residential uses in industrial zones, & parking are projected to go before the Planning Commission and Council towards the end of the year or early next year.

On-The-Ground vs. Pure Principle – Why Compromise?:
The core of WEBAIC’s mission is to ensure that when land use decisions affecting our constituencies are on the table, the best policies for industry and arts are adopted. This means that while we act based on our mission statement and its embodied principles, when decisions such as the “compromise” are before us, we have a responsibility to balance theoretical ideals against the real lives and livelihoods of the people and enterprises we represent. In this we support the economic, environmental, & cultural health of our community, of which our constituencies are lynchpins.

These efforts are neither intellectual exercises nor are the results concepts on paper - they’re as real as what West Berkeley brings to the life of the community - the bread and beer on our tables, the clothing in our closets, the solar panels and shingles on our roofs, the faucets, furniture, and light fixtures in our homes, our bikes, fine-tuned cars, the job that allows your neighbor’s kids to have healthcare and their family to keep their home, and on & on. They’re about keeping the doors of productive companies and studios open and maintaining Berkeley’s largest source of family-wage jobs for a large segment of our community that’s borne the brunt of a bad economy and decades of skewed national economic priorities.

œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ

WEBAIC’s Mission & Core Berkeley Political Realities Facing the Industrial & Artisan/Arts Community:
BadBrew: Official Lack of Appreciation for and Understanding of West Berkeley’s Industrial Economy, The Resulting Lack of WB Project Data, & A Misleading Picture of West Berkeley’s Productive Reality.

Throughout the West Berkeley Project, the City Planning & Economic Development departments and various Council members have evinced a lack of appreciation for, and understanding of, what industrial PDRR (Production, Distribution, Repair, Recycling) companies and jobs contribute to our community and society. This is especially striking compared to City government’s attitude during the 1985-1993 West Berkeley Plan era. Reflecting the existing attitude, the West Berkeley Project has thus far lacked the robust set of data required to adequately inform important decisions. Compounding this deficit, throughout the WB Project an untrue characterization of West Berkeley as a low-contributing, significantly vacant, and unproductive area has at times been implied & at other times stated by both governmental and development entities.

In Keeping With Mission, WEBAIC Works To Inform Process with Relevant Data & On-the-Ground Experience:
In response to this situation and in keeping with our mission, WEBAIC undertook an ongoing effort to bring relevant, factual information to the table in the belief that a thorough knowledge base provides the best opportunity for sensible decision making. Though not finished, after several years of facilitating expert academic testimony, timely factual data, and on-the-ground, everyday experience and knowledge to the table, the true picture of West Berkeley’s industrial PDRR economy is coming clearly into focus, a successful reality now deniable only by those either unaware of, or uninterested in this truth.

Diversity Of Attitudes Towards Berkeley Industry Among Decision Makers Highlighted by WB Project:
Some decision-makers entered the West Berkeley Project process aware of West Berkeley’s contributions and appreciative of the factual updating WEBAIC provided. Others appeared to have envisioned a pre- determined West Berkeley Project outcome that didn’t account for such facts as an impressive 4.6% manufacturing vacancy rate in the middle of a historic recession and the reality that more space was built in West Berkeley than that projected by the West Berkeley Plan in the allotted time period.

While some decision makers made minor adjustments to their positions in response to new information, Councilmember Capitelli in particular was willing to consider the facts and incorporate the productive reality of West Berkeley into his perspective and positions. While not coming the full distance WEBAIC had hoped on the critical issue of industrial protections, his willingness to seek a compromise has been key to the City’s, and WEBAIC’s, ability to craft a workable solution to this difficult issue and avoid unnecessary, ongoing community conflict.

Council member Linda Maio’s efforts on this issue, underpinned by her long-term understanding of and appreciation for what the industrial and arts communities in her district bring to the City, have been central to the ultimate achievement of this compromise. Councilmember Max Anderson’s eloquent and impassioned support for the industrial and artistic sectors and the jobs they provide played a key role in the ultimate resolution. The steadfast support throughout this process for these sectors and the people employed in them by Council members Jessie Arreguin and Kriss Worthington has been critically important and sincerely appreciated. Supporting WEBAIC’s efforts while clearly grasping the political realities, at various times during the final process both these Council members voted against the compromise because it did not go far enough in its protections of these jobs and companies. While not initial supporters of the compromise, the ultimate ‘yes” votes by Councilmember Darryl Moore, Susan Wengraf, Gordon Wozniak and Mayor Bates on this issue are appreciated by WEBAIC.

The US as a Country and Berkeley as a City That Sustainably Makes, Distributes, Repairs, and Recycles The Goods It Uses

Over the last several years WEBAIC has made the case in this newsletter and in the public venue for the importance to Berkeley and the region of supporting our local industrial and arts economy. Over the coming months we’ll begin to place West Berkeley’s industrial economy and the land use issues surrounding industrial retention and support within its larger national and international context.

With the Occupy demonstrations throughout the U.S highlighting the serious, long-term economic inequities in our society, the central role that the industrial economy plays in providing good jobs is being brought into sharper relief. That our famously “progressive” City government isn’t doing everything it can to support the workers in West Berkeley’s industrial and arts sectors, charter members of the “99%”, is eye-opening to many, especially those outside Berkeley who only know its reputation. That it should be actively enacting policies that will negatively impact these workers is a reality that many find not only hard to fathom, but one that we can only hope will be informed and moderated by the timely and urgent Occupy movement.

The 2008 financial crisis woke the country up to the fact that an economy largely based on the opaque shuffling of financial “instruments” was a house of cards waiting to fall. This has led to a widespread re- examination of and appreciation for what successful societies have always been based on – the making of the material goods utilized by its citizens and the trading/selling of these goods to others. Inherent to an industrial “making” economy are the requirements to distribute and repair the goods and the recent (as well as ancient) imperative to recycle & reuse them. This is what WEBAIC and other organizations/jurisdictions mean when describing the Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR) economy, a more revealing descriptor than “industrial”.

WEBAIC has taken the liberty of adding “R” for Recycling, thus PDRR. Essential to manufacturing is initial and ongoing R&D. While much important research takes place outside the manufacturing sector in universities, private labs, and start-ups, not often understood is the fact that manufacturers themselves are constantly conducting the R&D necessary to improve their products and create new ones. According to the Alliance For American Manufacturing, manufacturers in the United States currently account for nearly three-quarters of the nation’s industrial R&D.

President Obama and His Team Come Out Strongly For Manufacturing:
The false and oft repeated mantra that the U.S. doesn’t now, nor will it in the future, make things, is strongly contradicted by the facts. President Obama is beginning to forcefully beat the drum for this reinvigorated perspective. Following are a few statements recently made by the President and his team:
"If we want a robust growing economy, we need a robust manufacturing sector." – President Obama at Carnegie Mellon University - June 23, 2011:
“Today, I’m calling for all of us to come together- private sector industry, universities, and the government- to spark a renaissance in American manufacturing... With these key investments, we can ensure that the United States remains a nation that ‘invents it here and manufactures it here’ and creates high-quality, good paying jobs for American workers.” President Obama - June 29, 2011
"One of the changes, and I'm going to be talking about this in the coming weeks, is I'd like to once again see our best and brightest commit themselves to making things."–President Obama-Georgetown 5/09
"There's no question in my mind that a stronger manufacturing sector with more employment opportunities is really important for loosening the middle class squeeze and providing people with...better jobs." - Economist Jared Bernstein, recent head of President’s Middle Class Task Force. Mr. Bernstein noted that pay & benefits in factory jobs average 20% higher than those in the service sector. - June 24, 2011
"We cannot remain the world's engine of innovation without manufacturing activity." - President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

The US is the “worlds largest manufacturing economy” & other Amazing but Little Known Facts not found in Berkeley Planning or Economic Development Department presentations.

While the US has lost many manufacturing jobs overseas, manufacturing continues to be a pillar of the US economy. From the Manufacturing Institute Report, “The Facts About Modern Manufacturing”: “A common misconception is making the rounds: that domestic manufacturing is vanishing. This misperception is based on consumers’ daily observation of foreign-made products visible on store shelves and the media’s focus on the loss of jobs in the sector. But the facts do not support this pessimistic view. Manufacturing in the US remains vital and important to the US economy and is globally competitive.” WEBAIC would add that
Wholesale Trade and Warehousing uses and jobs are an integral component to this manufacturing industrial ecosystem. Following are some facts to illuminate this issue. More to come in future newsletters.

 The United States is the world's largest manufacturing economy, producing 21% of global manufactured products, a rate that has held steady for 30 years. China is second at 15% and Japan is third at 12%.

 Nearly 12 million Americans, or 9 percent of the workforce, are employed directly in manufacturing.

 Manufacturing supports an estimated 18.6 million jobs in the U.S.—about one in six private sector jobs.

 Manufacturing in the US generates about $1.6 trillion, or 12 percent of our Gross Domestic Product,

 Manufacturing pays higher wages & benefits & supports more economic activity (has a greater multiplier effect) per dollar of production than any other sector.

 Taken alone, U.S. Manufacturing would be the 9th largest economy in the world.

 Manufacturing has led all sectors in the reduction of CO2 emissions for the last two decades.

 Manufacturing ranks 2nd only to the services sector in the amount of state & local tax revenue generated.

 As in West Berkeley, over 80% of the 286,000 US manufacturing companies have less than 20 employees.
Smaller firms tend to export less than larger ones, thus they’re mostly part of sustainable local economies.

 57% of all US exports are in manufactured goods.

 U.S. manufacturers perform two-thirds of all US R&D, driving more innovation than any other sector.

 Wholesale trade had about 6 million wage and salary jobs in 2008. About 90 percent of the
establishments in the industry were small, employing fewer than 20 workers.

 The truck transportation and warehousing industry provided 2.1 million wage and salary jobs in 2008. 62% of trucking and warehousing establishments have 5 or fewer workers. 73% of jobs in these enterprises are either material moving, truck driver, mechanic, installer, or repair positions.

-- Data either from the Alliance For American Manufacturing or The Manufacturing Institute

* GOODS MOVEMENT/LAND USE PROJECT FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA - Final Summary Report -
December 2008 for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission by Hausrath Economics Group - Overseen by a
steering committee comprised of staff from the MTC, Caltrans, ABAG, East Bay Economic Development Alliance, Bay Area Council, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, West Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

Go to recent Newsletters archives

City Council To Give Direction On Master Use Permit Environmental Study

Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:33:44 -0700

WEBAIC thanks everyone who has thus far been a part of the effort to assure that the West Berkeley Project results in positive land use policies for the industrial and artisan/arts community and Berkeley as a whole. We hope that the City Council’s summer recess has provided an opportunity for rest and rejuvenation and the break from City hearings was a welcome one. The upcoming months will see the final phase of the West Berkeley Project addressing the important Master Use Pemit proposals. A newsletter detailing the final compromise passed by Council on protected industrial space will be forthcoming.

Council To Direct Staff On Study Areas For Further Environmental Analysis In Response to Citizen Lawsuit:

In May the Sustainable West Berkeley Alliance (SWBA), an organization of Berkeley residents and businesses, and the Council of Neighborhood Associations (CNA) sued the City of Berkeley, asserting that the West Berkeley project did not adequately study potential environmental impacts stemming from proposed Master Use Permit (MUP) provisions of the West Berkeley Project. In response to this suit, the City Council asked Planning staff to report back on how much time and money it would cost to adequately study several MUP proposals and recirculate a supplemental West Berkeley Project Draft Environmental Report with the new analysis included. The proposed areas of study are:

    1. Allow increased housing density in the Mixed Use Residential (MUR) portions of Master Use Permit sites.
    2. Within an MUP, allow increased building height (75-100 feet) for essential industrial equipment and process.
    3. Within the MUR portion of MUP sites, allow industrial uses that would not otherwise be allowed in the MUR district.
    4. Provide design guidelines to address aesthetic and natural habitat impacts from MUP development. *
          * (This provision addresses Aquatic Park in particular – WEBAIC)

This coming Tuesday City Council will provide direction to staff on whether to go forward with the environmental analysis on these issues as proposed or whether to modify their areas of study. In their report staff states that studying increasing housing density on MUR portions of MUP sites (# 3 above) will significantly up the cost and time for this analysis to be completed.

Proposed Timeline for Completion of DEIR and West Berkeley Project Approvals:

The staff report states that the Supplemental Draft EIR would be complete and public comment would be taken on it sometime between November 2011 and January 2012. It projects Planning Commission hearings on the DEIR and MUP amendments in March, and Council consideration of same in April-May if the increased housing density is included. If increased housing density is not included the report projects Council consideration of the DEIR in March.

WEBAIC Positions on the proposed amendments and areas of Environmental Study:

WEBAIC positions on the proposed ammendments are informed by both our mission to assure an appropriate land base for our constituencies and our mission to assure a harmonious relation between industry and arts and our residential neighbors. The harmonious relations with our residential neighbors have resulted in a mutually beneficial coalition between WEBAIC and various neighborhood associations and residents. This valuable coalition is not a typical alliance in urban areas and has only been achieved through WEBAIC’s and neighbors’ efforts to maintain sensitivity to each other’s needs and concerns.

City Proposal #1: Allow increased housing density in the Mixed Use Residential portions of Master Use Permit sites.

WEBAIC Position: WEBAIC supports the residential neighbors’ position that MUR densities are now appropriate. The MUR is largely built out as a single family home environment and existing zoning already allows for greatly increased densities to be built (see the condo development on the west side of 8th St between Carleton & Pardee). The proposed doubling of this standard to the densities allowed on San Pablo (and possibly above this standard) is inappropriate for this zone.

City Proposal #2: Within an MUP, allow increased building height (75-100 feet) for essential industrial equipment
and process.

WEBAIC Position: WEBAIC’s position throughout the West Berkeley Project has been to allow additional height “for
essential industrial equipment and process” such as Bayer was granted, but we have seen no practical examples of a need for 100 foot heights. We contend that 100’ is excessive and unnecessary.

City Proposal #3: Within the MUR portion of MUP sites, allow industrial uses that would not otherwise be allowed in
the MUR district.

WEBAIC Position: The allowable and prohibited uses tables in the West Berkeley Plan and zoning ordinance were painstakingly created to assure appropriate activity in the various zones, and most importantly, to reduce incompatibilities between residents and industry. This serves not only residents, but industry, as good relations with our residential neighbors is essential to our ability to continue our activities in the urban environment. Because of this, WEBAIC has always opposed staff’s, and the Planning Commission’s, proposals to potentially allow ALL permitted industrial uses (including heavy industry) from the four industrial zones to be located in the Mixed Use Residential zone (MUR). WEBAIC supports the residents’ position, that as the zone specifically allowing residents and sensitive receptors (children, elderly, ill) the allowable uses in the MUR should remain as now written.

City Proposal #4: Provide design guidelines to address aesthetic & natural habitat impacts from MUP development.

WEBAIC Position: WEBAIC is pleased that the City is going to undertake an expanded studying of the potential environmental impacts of increased development upon Aquatic Park and the West Berkeley environment. Aquatic Park is a valuable civic amenity, not only to the City as a whole, but also specifically to the West Berkeley community. It provides valuable green space not only for residents, but also for the approximately 16,000 West Berkeley workers to enjoy. Additionally, as WEBAIC’s mission includes a harmonious relationship with our residential neighbors, we are also sensitive to potential impacts of industry and development on the natural environment and believe all development should not negatively impact the natural areas of West Berkeley and the flora and fauna that depend upon it.

Council To Vote On R&D/Protected Space Compromise

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:57:03 -0700

Opens 270,000 sq ft, Not All, Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space to R&D
•
Please Attend To Support This Balanced Proposal
June 28th, 7:30, City Council Chambers - 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way (between Center & Allston)

On May 31st the City Council majority voted to direct staff to return on June 28th with language implementing a compromise on how much Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space to open to R&D. WEBAIC believes this compromise represents a reasonable solution to this contentious issue and requests you attend the upcoming Council meeting to show your support for the compromise and the Council members who voted for it. As the compromise is not official City policy until this vote (and a more perfunctory future second reading) takes place, our supportive presence is required.

As stated previously, WEBAIC truly appreciates the votes of those Council members who took a balanced approach to supporting productive industrial activity that provides family wage jobs to people without a college education, while at the same time providing a large, more than adequate amount of space for R&D companies and the good jobs they provide their highly educated workforce. This approach supports our local economy, results in a stable revenue stream for the City, provides good jobs benefiting all our citizens as well as important goods and services, and accomplishes all this without needlessly dividing our community.

The Mechanics of the Compromise:

A Total of 270,000 sq ft of protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space in the Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) and Mixed Manufacturing Zone (MM) will be permitted to be occupied by R&D uses. The entire 270,000 sq ft can come from vacant space but only 150,000 of the total can come from space that was occupied as of 5/1/2011 by existing Wholesale Trade and Warehouse companies.

As the City doesn’t have comprehensive records of space utilization, it’s unclear how much Protected Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space exists in the MULI and MM, but from the available (though incomplete) data it’s clear that 270,000 square feet is significantly less than the total. By limiting the vacant space category to space vacant as of 5/1/11, no property owner is incentivized by the compromise to take any action that would result in displacing a Wholesale Trade/Warehouse tenant beyond the 150,000 sq ft agreed to.

As in all compromises, this isn’t the ideal solution for either WEBAIC or for those on the other side of the table, but it is a significantly less negative outcome for our membership and constituency than the proposal previously on the table – to open ALL Protected Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space to R&D.

It is only through your efforts thus far that WEBAIC was in a position to reach this compromise. Please attend the City Council meeting on the 28th to assure that all our work together comes to fruition.

Preserve Arts & Crafts Studios

Tue, 31 May 2011 22:21:56 -0700

Vote To Support the WEBAIC Compromise Proposal To

Mon, 30 May 2011 21:37:30 -0700

PLEASE ATTEND:
Two Issues Critical To West Berkeley’s Future At City Council This Tuesday - 5/31: 1. Vote On Proposal To Open ALL Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space to R&D
2. Define Master Use Permit Provisions - Height/Massing/Coverage, MUPs in MUR, Floating Uses This Tuesday, May 31, 7:30, Council Chambers - 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way (between Center & Allston)

œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ

Please Attend To Encourage the City Council to Take A Balanced Approach to Development That Supports:
A Sustainable Economy & Environment, Community Equity, and Economic and Ethnic Diversity A.) Vote To Support the WEBAIC Compromise Proposal To:
Open 100,000 sq ft of Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space to R&D
In Place Of The Council majority proposal to Open ALL Protected Wholesale & Warehouse Space to R&D
B.) Support Master Use Permit (MUP) provisions that maintain West Berkeley’s workability & livability:
1. Maintain reasonable heights and massing standards - existing 45’ & Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2, not proposed 75 feet height and (FAR) of 3.
2. A robust, but reasonable 30 acre limitation on aggregation of property for Master Use Permit eligibility.
1. Maintain Mixed Use Residential Zoning Standards for MUP sites occupying MUR property

œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ

Please Support WEBAIC Compromise Proposal on Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space: Open Up A Reasonable 100,000 sq ft of Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space to R&D
100,000 sq ft, plus MUP sites, existing non-protected space, and protected space now allowed to be converted to R&D provide a large, more than adequate amount of space for R&D closely matching projected demand. The proposal to open all this space would be destroy blue & green collar jobs supporting working families, a local-serving, stable economy, contributing companies, environmental sustainability, & our community’s equity as seen in our economic & ethnic diversity.

œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ

City Council To Vote Tuesday, May 31st On Proposal To Open ALL Protected Industrial Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space to R&D

Fri, 27 May 2011 21:39:51 -0700

This coming Tuesday, City Council will vote on whether to needlessly open up ALL protected Industrial Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space to R&D and discuss the all-important Master Use Permit (MUP) proposals, directing staff to return with proposal language for a possible June 14th vote.

The Master Use Permit proposals to be addressed: 75’ height limit (now 45’), Floor Area Ratio (FAR - massing) of 3 (now 2), Coverage/Aggregation (how much of West Berkeley land can be covered by MUPs in what period of time), allowing MUP development in the Mixed-Use Residential Zone (MUR) 75’ height - now 35’, FAR 3 - now 1), potentially allowing uses from all industrial zones into MUR (now only MUR-appropriate uses allowed), allowing large-scale retail into MUR (now only neighborhood-serving retail allowed).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please Support WEBAIC Compromise Proposal on Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space:
Open Up A Reasonable 100,000 sq ft of Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space to R&D
100,000 sq ft, plus MUP sites, existing non-protected space, and protected space now allowed to be converted to R&D provide a vast, more than adequate amount of space for R&D closely matching projected demand. The proposal to open All this space would be destroy blue & green collar jobs supporting working families, a local-serving, stable economy, contributing companies, environmental sustainability, & our community’s equity as it seen in our economic & ethnic diversity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. No to proposed 75 feet height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3 on Master Use Permit (MUP) sites.
There is NO demonstrated need for these huge increases in development standards (tripling of the existing built environment) that only facilitate residential and office towers on the precious 4% of Berkeley land devoted to industrial and artistic production. Verified production needs for height can be allowed by a specialized permit.

2. A 30 acre limitation on aggregation of property for Master Use Permit eligibility:
The West Berkeley Project has focused on 6 “legacy, development opportunity” sites as examples of what MUP sites would be. These sites total 28.15 acres; therefore a limitation of 30 acres for MUP applicability in a ten year period is reasonable.

3. Maintain Mixed Use Residential Zoning Standards for MUP sites occupying MUR property:
Staff's Master Use Permit proposals allow 1.) 75’ heights where a 35’ height MUR height limit currently exists, 2.) a tripling of the allowable FAR (density) from one to three, 4.) retail uses permitted on San Pablo, Ashby, & University to locate in the MUR, and 5.) industrial uses currently prohibited in the MUR zones to locate in MUR. These proposals are destructive of the workability and livability of the MUR and destructive to the positive relationship between industry and residents that WEBAIC seeks to foster.

These have been proposed for the MUR without any pro-active outreach to the broader MUR residential community. There has been NO City effort to inform the broader residential MUR community of these proposed, radical, vastly expanded development standards, let alone alert them to whatever opportunities might exist for them to weigh in on proposals that will shape their environment for decades to come. It is hard to imagine similar radical changes being proposed for other residential neighborhoods without such an effort.

City Council Scheduled To Vote May 31st On Proposal To Open ALL Protected Industrial Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space to R&D

Tue, 24 May 2011 11:11:30 -0700

Two Important Meetings Next Week: Protected Industrial Space + Arts & Crafts

If you can only attend one meeting:

    Industrial community please attend the May 31 Protected Industrial Space meeting at the City Council.

    Artist/Artisan community please attend the June 1 arts & crafts meeting at the Planning Commission.

Since the City Council meeting is likely the last, most important opportunity to weigh in on the core industrial protection issue, and since the Planning Commission Arts Definition hearing will be re-heard at an upcoming City Council hearing, the WEBAIC Steering Committee recommends:

   1.) The industrial community make Tuesday’s May 31 City Council Protected Industrial space meeting a priority and attend in support of WEBAIC’s Compromise Proposal on Protected Industrial Space.

City Council Meeting on Protected Industrial Space
Tues., May 31, 7:00pm
City Council Chambers - 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way (between Center & Allston)

   2.) The Artist/Artisan community make Wednesday’s June 1st Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Arts Definition a priority and attend in support of WEBAIC’s position: West Berkeley industrial-type studio space should continue to be reserved for artists & craftspeople requiring industrial-type space and not for uses that can operate in an office-type environment.

Planning Commission Meeting on Arts & Crafts Studios
Wed., June 1, 7:00pm
City Council Chambers - 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way (between Center & Allston)

The wording of the definition of Arts & Crafts is a critical issue for the artist/artisan community and industrially-protected space is a critical issue for the industrial community. There is a complex overlap in how these two issues interrelate. The arts definition ultimately affects the entire character of West Berkeley and the industrial protections directly affect how much space is available for not only industry, but also the arts. The interrelationship between these issues demonstrate why WEBAIC is a coalition of industry and arts, as the policies that support one support the other and vice versa. Please come out on the 31st and 1st and support your respective activity and sector, knowing that in speaking for the arts, industry is stronger, and when you speak for industry, the arts thrive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

             The Protected Industrial Space Issue: Support the WEBAIC
Compromise Cap Proposal on Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space

• March 29 Council Vote Ignores Citizens, Violates Plans – May 31st Final Opportunity for Reasoned Solution:

At their March 29th meeting the City Council majority voted against the vast majority of its own citizens’ testimony (over three nights at Council and three years at the Planning Commission) to violate the West Berkeley Plan and Berkeley General Plan by opening ALL PROTECTED MULI & MM Zone Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space to R&D uses. Council directed staff to return with zoning language to implement this jobs-destroying proposal at their May 31rst meeting where a vote is expected, followed by a required “Second Reading” vote June 7th or 14th. WEBAIC expects the 31rst to be the final, most important opportunity for our members, constituency, and supporters to express their support for the industrial zoning protections – zoning’s core mechanism to assure affordable space for our sectors, companies, studios, and jobs.

• Council Proposal Depends Upon Company & Blue/Green Collar Job Displacement for Success:

With its ability to pay more for space, R&D is projected to displace vital blue and green collar companies (and their good jobs) now occupying Wholesale & Warehouse space. It will also contribute to precluding these companies (that now assure equity is real, and not only words) from expanding and locating here in the future. R&D’s highly educated workforce, some of society’s most advantaged workers, will also displace jobs for those with less than a college education, the least advantaged, most vulnerable workers in our community and society. With a significant proportion of these threatened jobs held by Latino, Asian immigrant, and African American workers, this action is likely to drive the further erosion of our community’s ethnic & economic diversity. The expected displacements (the Council proposal’s success depends upon displacement) would clearly violate the West Berkeley Plan and Berkeley General Plan’s Goals and Policies to retain and support these sectors, companies, and jobs.

If R&D is allowed to occupy ALL Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space, a large percentage of the pool of space intended for the location and expansion of manufacturing and the arts will now likely be precluded from these uses by R&D’s ability to pay significantly more for the space.

• Please Attend On the 31st to Encourage Council To Unify, Not Divide Our Community:

May 31rst presents a critically important final opportunity for our present leaders to reconfigure this destructive proposal and come together to craft a unifying - not divisive, future for our community. They will need the benefit of on-the-ground experience, intelligence, and passion to steer this new course and make this positive choice. Please attend on May 31rst to support those Council members who already support a balanced approach. More importantly, attend to encourage those Council members currently unclear on the importance of this decision, to enact a solution not understood as disenfranchising a large part of its citizenry, hundreds of contributing businesses, and thousands of workers.

Please attend on the 31st to let Council know that their proposal is destructive of the shared community values and that you support WEBAIC’s Compromise on Protected Industrial Space, a Compromise worthy of Berkeley’s history of inclusive, equitable, and environmentally responsible development.

Preserve Arts & Crafts Studios for people who need industrial-type space

Sun, 22 May 2011 21:52:16 -0700

Keep office-type uses out of Industrial Space
•
Speak at the Public Hearing on June 1 on
The Definition of Arts & Crafts (Studios)

If you can’t come,
• Write to the Planning Commission •

• Studio Space for West Berkeley Artists & Artisans At Stake In Decision •

Wed., June 1, 7:00pm
City Council Chambers - 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way (between Center & Allston)

The city is finally permitting arts and crafts into manufacturing and warehouse space. WEBAIC has lobbied for that for 15 years, and it will be great for artists and artisans.

However, the city is also considering changing the definition of arts and crafts studios to include uses that are done in an office environment and do not need an industrial-type studio. That would likely have a profound affect on rent levels and harm arts and crafts, manufacturing, and all industrial space users.

There are two actions you can take:
Come to the public hearing on June 1, and Write to the Planning Commission today.

Tell them to not alter the content of the arts and crafts studio definition written by the Civic Arts Commission, and do not open arts and crafts studios to uses that do not need an industrial-type space.

Please attend the Planning Commission meeting and speak.

Send your comments by email to the Planning Commission:
Jordan Harrison, secretary, Planning & Development
E-mail: JHarrison@CityofBerkeley.info

If you send your email by this Tuesday, May 24, it will go into the Planning Commission packet. After that the commissioners will receive it on the day of the hearing.

For more details, see our last newsletter on our web site: www.webaic.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Staff Proposed Definition (May 4, 2011):

Arts & Crafts Studio: An Establishment engaged in the creation of fine art or craft objects, the creation of which typically requires special dexterity or artistic skill. Such establishments may participate in periodic open studios, but otherwise are subject to the applicable district’s requirements for incidental retail sales of goods made on site. Any retail activity is subject to the retail operating hours, if any, prescribed by the applicable zoning district.

Examples of occupations, vocations, or trades typically engaged in this work include, but are not limited to: woodworkers, potters/ceramicists; stained-glassmakers; glass blowers; textile artists and weavers; jewelry makers; painters; fine art printmakers; photographers/filmmakers; leather workers; metal workers; musical instrument makers; model makers; papermakers; installation artist; sculptors; and video artists.

This definition does not include architectural and landscape services, industrial or graphic design services, and other commercial activities normally conducted in an office environment. The following North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) classifications provide examples of these excluded uses: 541310, 541320, 5414, 5415.

Rehearsal space: Staff encourages the Planning commission to include rehearsal space as part or the Arts and Crafts Definition, as long as the rehearsal space does not lend itself to public performance.

Still Time For Council To Take A Balanced Approach In Support of a Sustainable Economy & Environment, Economic Equity, & Ethnic Diversity

Thu, 5 May 2011 21:45:56 -0700

C o u n c i l M a j o r i t y V o t e s F o r J o b s & E q u i t y - D e s t r o y i n g P r o p o s a l on M a r c h 2 9 t h - Opens ALL Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space to R&D

 City Council To Vote On Proposal AGAIN MAY 31- PLEASE ATTEND

 Still Time For Council To Take A Balanced Approach In Support of a
Sustainable Economy & Environment, Economic Equity, & Ethnic Diversity

 Council Vote Ignores Citizens, Violates Plans – May 31rst Final Opportunity for Reasoned Solutions:

The majority of the City Council voted against the vast majority of its own citizens’ testimony (over three nights at Council and three years at the Planning Commission) to violate the West Berkeley Plan and Berkeley General Plan by opening ALL PROTECTED MULI & MM Zone Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space to R&D uses. Council directed staff to return with zoning language to implement this destructive proposal at their May 31rst meeting where a vote is expected, followed by a required “Second Reading” vote June 7th or 14th. WEBAIC expects the 31rst to be the final, most important opportunity for our members, constituency, and supporters to express their support for the industrial zoning protections – zoning’s core mechanism to assure affordable space for our sectors, companies, studios, and jobs.

 Council Proposal Depends Upon Company, Blue/Green Collar Job Displacement for Success:
With its ability to pay more for space, R&D is projected to displace vital blue and green collar companies (and their good jobs) now occupying Wholesale & Warehouse space*. It will also contribute to precluding these companies (that now assure equity is real, and not only words) from expanding and locating here in the future. R&D’s highly educated workforce, some of society’s most advantaged workers, will also displace jobs for those with less than a college education, the least advantaged, most vulnerable workers in our community and society. With a significant proportion of these threatened jobs held by Latino, Asian immigrant, and African American workers, this action is likely to drive the further erosion of our community’s ethnic & economic diversity. The expected displacements (the Council proposal’s success depends upon displacement) would clearly violate the West Berkeley Plan and Berkeley General Plan’s Goals and Policies to retain and support these sectors, companies, and jobs.

 Just The Beginning? An Injury To Two Is An Injury To All:
If Council is able to pass this proposal and remove ALL protections on two of the four now-protected uses, the inexorable drive for higher land values and profits are expected to spur further efforts to erode, if not eliminate, the remaining protections for manufacturing, and possibly arts & crafts. Until late in the West Berkeley Project process, staff proposed, and the Planning Commission looked favorably upon, removing ALL protections for manufacturing. This was the ultimate goal. And for all the City’s talk of promoting the arts in West Berkeley, it fell to WEBAIC to truly do something and forward proposals to facilitate the arts. If R&D is allowed to occupy ALL Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space, a large percentage of this pool of space intended for the location and expansion of manufacturing and the arts will now likely be precluded from these uses by R&D’s ability to pay significantly more for the space.

Council Rejects Sustainable Industrial Land Management Compromise – Opts for Clear-cutting:
Throughout the West Berkeley Project process WEBAIC has been willing to compromise in service of solutions that work for all parties. With the present proposal the City Council (along with almost all five developers) have rejected compromise and opted for open season on many of the industrial companies and working class blue and green collar jobs in West Berkeley. Numerous and changing reasons have been given for taking this radical approach to adjusting the zoning, but nothing presented justifies this proposal to allow the clear-cutting of a core sector of West Berkeley’s vibrant economic ecosystem. Please Attend On the 31rst to Encourage Council To Unify, Not Divide Our Community:
WEBAIC believes that May 31rst presents a critically important final opportunity for our present leaders to reconfigure this destructive proposal and come together to craft a unifying - not divisive, future for our community. They will need the benefit of our on-the-ground experience, intelligence, and passion to steer this new course and make this positive choice. Please attend on May 31rst to support those Council members who already support a balanced approach. More importantly, attend to encourage those Council members currently unclear on the importance of this decision, to enact a solution not understood as disenfranchising a large part of its citizenry, hundreds of contributing businesses, and thousands of workers.

 Stay the Inclusive, Sustainable Development Course - Reject Unsustainable Development Benefiting the Few:
Berkeley has historically striven towards the goal of inclusive development. Council’s present proposal moves Berkeley off this enlightened trajectory and further down a path of relentless gentrification and homogenization of our economy and population. The West Berkeley Plan explicitly states that the gentrification resulting from an unmitigated market that holds profit as its highest “good” is a danger to our shared community goals. To protect Berkeley from this one-dimensional future the Plan instituted industrial protections (including protections for Wholesale Trade and Warehousing) to assure that broader community values - good jobs for less advantaged workers, a mixed use economy able to withstand economic ups and downs, goods and services for the local community (localization before “locavore”), and an economically and ethnically diverse population - would result from our land use policies.

 Affordable Housing, Good Jobs, AND Youth Training Programs – Reject False Choices:
With our community investing so much time, energy, and capital on efforts to assure affordable housing to maintain a diverse population, that Council would launch an attack on the single greatest source of good jobs Berkeley provides for the very populations they’re trying to provide housing for, is counter-productive at best and unconscionable at worst. WEBAIC fully supports expanded training and educational opportunities for our youth. To posit that we must displace a significant number of the already modest amount of good jobs our City now provides for our citizens with lesser opportunities in order to provide these programs for youth from the same populations (possibly the very children of potentially displaced workers) is an unnecessary, Faustian bargain. The best example we have of such a successful program is Biotech Partners that, though started with Bayer monies, is now funded by 49 foundations, endowments, corporations, and governmental agencies (with Bayer still contributing). Clearly, if there is a will to create such programs, the City can do so without funding it on the backs of those least able to shoulder this burden. This type of funding is exactly the function of the “benefits” projected to flow from the Master Use Permit developments. That this concept is now being expanded to incentivize displacement of working class jobs (opening up ALL Wholesale Trade & Warehouse to R&D) is just the last of a long litany of unsupported “reasons” given for why West Berkeley’s industrial protection policies should be removed. Jobs AND training – reject false choices.

For the success of our City’s economy, in service of an equitable community, a sustainable environment, and future civic harmony, PLEASE ATTEND the Berkeley City Council meeting on May 31rst. Please attend to let Council know that their proposal is destructive of the above, shared community values and that your support WEBAIC’s Compromise on Protected Industrial Space, a Compromise worthy of Berkeley’s history of inclusive, equitable, and environmentally responsible development.

Protected Industrial Space OnThe Table at City Council March 29

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:28:39 -0700

Why the Future Availability of Affordable Space for Manufacturing, Warehouse, Wholesale Trade, Arts & Crafts, Recycling, Contracting, & Retailing Is At Stake and What This Means

At their February meeting, the City Council took a 5 to 4 sense vote to open up ALL Protected Industrial Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space (an unverified 2 million sq ft) to Research and Development (R&D). WEBAIC has proposed opening up a smaller subset of this space (100,000 sq ft) so as not to create destructive displacement pressure on valuable industrial & arts enterprises and good jobs and more closely match projected R&D demand.
On March 29th the City Council will discuss this issue, public comment will be taken, and Council may direct staff to write actual zoning language that would open a Council-directed amount of protected industrial space to R&D. Whatever the amount, this directive will have far reaching consequences for the future viability of industry and arts, the sustainability of our economy and culture, and the economic equity and ethnic diversity of our community and region. WEBAIC has been in discussions with City Council members on this issue over the last 2 months. Your presence on the 29th provides the best chance of a positive resolution to this issue for our companies, studios, jobs, and for Berkeley.

The Core Question: How do we equitably balance support for our sustainable industrial and arts economy and culture and the good jobs these sectors provide for the large portion of our population without a college education with providing adequate space for Research & Development activities, particularly start up companies coming out of Lawrence Berkeley Lab.

WEBAIC Position:
WEBAIC believes that as a city we are in the ideal position of being able to accomplish the positive goal of providing more (than adequate) space for R&D activity without setting in motion a destructive displacement of our robust industrial and artistic enterprises and the good, family wage blue and green collar jobs they provide.
This can be done by 1.) providing six Master Use Permits (MUP) that will allow the industrially protected space on approximately 30 acres to be used for R&D and 2.) allowing an additional 100,000 sq ft of protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space (in the MM and MULI zones) to be opened up to R&D. The MUP sites can provide at least 3 million sq ft for R&D in addition to the existing 3.5 million sq ft of unprotected space now available to be permitted for this use. Additionally, another .5-1 million sq ft of protected space is allowed to be converted to R&D under present zoning. These figures reveal that well over half of all West Berkeley built space will soon be available for R&D, an amount way beyond any party’s most optimistic projections for R&D demand.

Points In Brief:
• Enough Space for R&D: The MUP sites plus 100,000 sq ft of protected Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space outside the MUPs provide more than adequate space for all known projected R&D demand now and in the foreseeable future.
• Opening up All Protected Wholesale and Warehouse space will result unnecessary and destructive displacement pressure on all manufacturing, warehousing, arts, crafts, recycling, contracting, and retail companies and their good blue and green collar jobs occupying this protected space, threatening our local serving economy and culture.
• R&D capitalization will result in displacement of industry & arts: Real estate statistics and on the ground research reveal that R&D can pay significantly more for space than protected uses and will displace them.
• Opening up All Protected Wholesale & Warehouse space violates the West Berkeley Plan & General Plan’s:
Goals & policies to maintain a diverse economy by installing the industrial protections to mitigate market forces. Goals and Policies intended to protect Wholesale Trade and Warehouse uses and jobs. Goals and Policies intended to maintain the ethnic and economic diversity of our city and region,
• The West Berkeley Project did not study the opening up of All Protected Wholesale and Warehouse space for its environmental impacts and is therefore inadequate.
•
Points in Detail: The Question of Now - How do we provide R&D space until the Master Use Permit properties develop?
• 25% of all industrially protected space in the MULI & MM zones (.5 – 1 million square feet) is allowed to be converted to R&D space under existing zoning.
• Approximately 3.5 million square feet of unprotected space now exists in West Berkeley, a large percentage of which can be converted to R&D uses under existing zoning.
• A large percentage of the City-identified “legacy” Master Use Permit sites are now unprotected, allowing them to be developed now for R&D now without having to go through the MUP process.
• 25% of all industrially protected property on the City-identified “legacy” Master Use Permit sites (i.e. 50,000 sq ft on Peerless site) can be converted to R&D use under existing zoning.
• Over 40 West Berkeley scientific companies are presently engaged in R&D and production activity, revealing that these companies are able to locate in West Berkeley now.
•
Facts - Demand for R&D start-up space:
• Providing space for start-up spin offs from LBL (particularly clean tech) has been given as the primary reason to open up now-protected industrial space throughout the West Berkeley Project. Throughout the process WEBAIC has agreed that this is an important goal.
• It makes economic sense to closely match space provided for R&D in reasonable proportion to its projected demand. Otherwise the City risks the loss of important economic activity and good jobs.
• Michael Cohen, Director of UC Berkeley Office of IP & Industry Research Alliances has made several presentations showing that on average 15 spin-offs come out of LBL each year. He details the present “Squandering” scenario that shows existing efforts at attraction and retention, plus natural attrition, result in just two of these companies remaining in the East Bay Green Corridor (Richmond to Fremont) after five years. He also details a “Leveraging” scenario showing that with cities doing everything right to attract and retain spin- offs, 27 of them would remain here after 5 years. With these companies occupying 1500 to 3000 square feet and having 6-7 employees, this LBL study shows that the entire East Bay Green Corridor, not just Berkeley, can expect less than 100,000 sq ft of space demand and under 200 jobs created from LBL spin-offs by 2016.
• R&Disdependentupontheupsanddownsofgovernmentandventurecapitalfundingclimatesthat historically have seen great swings. The West Berkeley Plan’s emphasis on a diverse economy has served the City well in buffering it from the wild economic swings that result from too great a dependence on any one particular sector.
•
Facts - Availability of Space For R&D: • The City’s Environmental Impact report projects a total of 3.8 million sq ft of development over the next
20 years in West Berkeley.
• WEBAIC has agreed with the City and developers that all industrially-protected property on six Master Use Permit sites on at least 30 acres be allowed to be used for R&D. At the City-proposed Floor Area Ratio of 3 (FAR) this would allow 3.9 million square feet of development. Allowing for parking requirements and setbacks, etc. three million sq ft of development for R&D on these sites is possible and reasonable.
• There now exists approximately 3.5 million sq ft of unprotected space in West Berkeley available to be permitted for R&D while another .5 -1 million sq ft of protected space is allowed to be converted to R&D under present zoning. This is well over half of all West Berkeley built space available for R&D.
•
Facts - Why Industry and Arts need protected industrial space: • Industry and arts can typically afford to pay a similar amount for space, approximately 60 cents to $1.00 per
sq ft, depending on space size. Anomalies exist, but these are the averages.
• Real estate figures and on the ground research show that R&D typically pays significantly more for space. Cassidy Turley BT Commercial lists R&D as paying on average $2.30 per sq ft.
• Real estate is based on the concept that the “highest and best use”, the use able to pay the most for space, will
ultimately occupy available space if market forces are unmitigated. Economic history has shown this to be true. • Of the four R&D companies the City has sited as examples of R&D it would like to see in West Berkeley,
three of the four are in West Berkeley. The fourth was here but appears to now be out of business. All four cite either successful private equity offerings of government and VC funding of between 1 and 10 million dollars. Industry and arts do not regularly receive this type of capitalization.

Facts - Why Protected Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space is also critically important to Manufacturing, Arts & Crafts, Recycling, Contracting, and Retail uses:
• All Protected Industrial space is intended as a pool of flexible space to provide habitat for Manufacturing, Warehouse, Wholesale Trade, Arts & Crafts, Recycling, & Contracting uses to locate and expand into. Many industrial and arts companies are here only because protected Warehouse and Wholesale Trade space was available when they looked to locate or expand in West Berkeley. Beyond industry and arts, numerous Berkeley retail companies also rely on their West Berkeley warehouses to operate economically and efficiently.
•
Facts – The West Berkeley Plan view of R&D and its relation to industrial and arts uses. How allowing R&D into protected space violates West Berkeley Plan and Berkeley General Plan Goals & Policies:
• The West Berkeley Plan is clear on the need to specifically locate R&D outside of the Protected Uses category: “While support for advanced services (research laboratories) ...is also important, these sectors are generally supported, rather than threatened, by market developments. Thus, the policy structure for these sectors should be different. The Plan clearly acknowledges that, unmitigated by the Protections, R&D’s more highly capitalized structure would result in the displacement of protected uses over time (Land Use – “Market forces ...strongly support the development of advanced services (e.g. research laboratories)”. The Protected Uses category is also meant to protect jobs for those without advanced education while the Plan recognizes that “...research activities generally provide jobs solely for the highly trained...” – Economic Goal 4.
•
Facts- The West Berkeley Plan and Berkeley General Plan are unequivocal in their language and policies intended to maintain an ethnically and economically diverse population and economy:
• Berkeley General Plan:
General Plan Economic Element Objectives: 7. Increase social and economic equity in land use decisions. Economic Development and Employment Element - Policy Background: ...skyrocketing property values and rents...threaten(ing) the economic, social, and cultural diversity that distinguishes Berkeley life
• Goal #2: To maintain Berkeley’s unique character and quality of life, Berkeley must strive to maintain the cultural, social, and economic diversity that is such an important aspect of the character of Berkeley. If Berkeley is to remain a diverse community with a wide range of races, incomes, cultures, and ideas, Berkeley must take steps to maintain... a range of jobs, and a variety of local goods and services. One major threat to Berkeley’s character and to its diversity is gentrification.
•
• West Berkeley Plan: The broadest Purposes of the Plan: Maintain the ethnic and economic diversity of West Berkeley's resident population. II. The Economic Rationale of the Plan - A. The Rationale Overall: The City's economic policy must seek to create
and maintain jobs for its citizens, most importantly for its citizens who would have the most difficulty obtaining jobs. Goal 5: Continue to create employment opportunities, especially for Berkeley and West Berkeley residents. It is particularly important to find these opportunities for economically disadvantaged Berkeley and W. Berkeley residents.

Protected Industrial Space - The Issue:

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:21:16 -0700

Please Attend: Protected Industrial Space OnThe Table at City Council March 29
March 29th, 7:15, City Council Chambers - 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way (between Center & Allston)

Why the Future Availability of Affordable Space for Manufacturing, Warehouse, Wholesale Trade, Arts & Crafts, Recycling, Contracting, & Retailing Is At Stake and What This Means

At their February meeting, the City Council took a 5 to 4 sense vote to open up ALL Protected Industrial Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space (an unverified 2 million sq ft) to Research and Development (R&D). WEBAIC has proposed opening up a smaller subset of this space (100,000 sq ft) so as not to create destructive displacement pressure on valuable industrial & arts enterprises and good jobs and more closely match projected R&D demand.
On March 29th the City Council will discuss this issue, public comment will be taken, and Council may direct staff to write actual zoning language that would open a Council-directed amount of protected industrial space to R&D. Whatever the amount, this directive will have far reaching consequences for the future viability of industry and arts, the sustainability of our economy and culture, and the economic equity and ethnic diversity of our community and region. WEBAIC has been in discussions with City Council members on this issue over the last 2 months. Your presence on the 29th provides the best chance of a positive resolution to this issue for our companies, studios, jobs, and for Berkeley.

The Core Question: How do we equitably balance support for our sustainable industrial and arts economy and culture and the good jobs these sectors provide for the large portion of our population without a college education with providing adequate space for Research & Development activities, particularly start up companies coming out of Lawrence Berkeley Lab.

WEBAIC Position:
WEBAIC believes that as a city we are in the ideal position of being able to accomplish the positive goal of providing more (than adequate) space for R&D activity without setting in motion a destructive displacement of our robust industrial and artistic enterprises and the good, family wage blue and green collar jobs they provide.
This can be done by 1.) providing six Master Use Permits (MUP) that will allow the industrially protected space on approximately 30 acres to be used for R&D and 2.) allowing an additional 100,000 sq ft of protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space (in the MM and MULI zones) to be opened up to R&D. The MUP sites can provide at least 3 million sq ft for R&D in addition to the existing 3.5 million sq ft of unprotected space now available to be permitted for this use. Additionally, another .5-1 million sq ft of protected space is allowed to be converted to R&D under present zoning. These figures reveal that well over half of all West Berkeley built space will soon be available for R&D, an amount way beyond any party’s most optimistic projections for R&D demand.

Points In Brief:
• Enough Space for R&D: The MUP sites plus 100,000 sq ft of protected Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space outside the MUPs provide more than adequate space for all known projected R&D demand now and in the foreseeable future.

• Opening up All Protected Wholesale and Warehouse space will result unnecessary and destructive displacement pressure on all manufacturing, warehousing, arts, crafts, recycling, contracting, and retail companies and their good blue and green collar jobs occupying this protected space, threatening our local serving economy and culture.

• R&D capitalization will result in displacement of industry & arts: Real estate statistics and on the ground research reveal that R&D can pay significantly more for space than protected uses and will displace them.

• Opening up All Protected Wholesale & Warehouse space violates the West Berkeley Plan & General Plan’s:
Goals & policies to maintain a diverse economy by installing the industrial protections to mitigate market forces. Goals and Policies intended to protect Wholesale Trade and Warehouse uses and jobs. Goals and Policies intended to maintain the ethnic and economic diversity of our city and region,

• The West Berkeley Project did not study the opening up of All Protected Wholesale and Warehouse space for its environmental impacts and is therefore inadequate.

Points in Detail: The Question of Now - How do we provide R&D space until the Master Use Permit properties develop?
• 25% of all industrially protected space in the MULI & MM zones (.5 – 1 million square feet) is allowed to be converted to R&D space under existing zoning.
• Approximately 3.5 million square feet of unprotected space now exists in West Berkeley, a large percentage of which can be converted to R&D uses under existing zoning.
• A large percentage of the City-identified “legacy” Master Use Permit sites are now unprotected, allowing them to be developed now for R&D now without having to go through the MUP process.
• 25% of all industrially protected property on the City-identified “legacy” Master Use Permit sites (i.e. 50,000 sq ft on Peerless site) can be converted to R&D use under existing zoning.
• Over 40 West Berkeley scientific companies are presently engaged in R&D and production activity, revealing that these companies are able to locate in West Berkeley now.

Facts - Demand for R&D start-up space:
• Providing space for start-up spin offs from LBL (particularly clean tech) has been given as the primary reason to open up now-protected industrial space throughout the West Berkeley Project. Throughout the process WEBAIC has agreed that this is an important goal.
• It makes economic sense to closely match space provided for R&D in reasonable proportion to its projected demand. Otherwise the City risks the loss of important economic activity and good jobs.
• Michael Cohen, Director of UC Berkeley Office of IP & Industry Research Alliances has made several presentations showing that on average 15 spin-offs come out of LBL each year. He details the present “Squandering” scenario that shows existing efforts at attraction and retention, plus natural attrition, result in just two of these companies remaining in the East Bay Green Corridor (Richmond to Fremont) after five years. He also details a “Leveraging” scenario showing that with cities doing everything right to attract and retain spin- offs, 27 of them would remain here after 5 years. With these companies occupying 1500 to 3000 square feet and having 6-7 employees, this LBL study shows that the entire East Bay Green Corridor, not just Berkeley, can expect less than 100,000 sq ft of space demand and under 200 jobs created from LBL spin-offs by 2016.
• R&Disdependentupontheupsanddownsofgovernmentandventurecapitalfundingclimatesthat historically have seen great swings. The West Berkeley Plan’s emphasis on a diverse economy has served the City well in buffering it from the wild economic swings that result from too great a dependence on any one particular sector.

Facts - Availability of Space For R&D: • The City’s Environmental Impact report projects a total of 3.8 million sq ft of development over the next
20 years in West Berkeley.
• WEBAIC has agreed with the City and developers that all industrially-protected property on six Master Use Permit sites on at least 30 acres be allowed to be used for R&D. At the City-proposed Floor Area Ratio of 3 (FAR) this would allow 3.9 million square feet of development. Allowing for parking requirements and setbacks, etc. three million sq ft of development for R&D on these sites is possible and reasonable.
• There now exists approximately 3.5 million sq ft of unprotected space in West Berkeley available to be permitted for R&D while another .5 -1 million sq ft of protected space is allowed to be converted to R&D under present zoning. This is well over half of all West Berkeley built space available for R&D.

Facts - Why Industry and Arts need protected industrial space: • Industry and arts can typically afford to pay a similar amount for space, approximately 60 cents to $1.00 per
sq ft, depending on space size. Anomalies exist, but these are the averages.
• Real estate figures and on the ground research show that R&D typically pays significantly more for space. Cassidy Turley BT Commercial lists R&D as paying on average $2.30 per sq ft.
• Real estate is based on the concept that the “highest and best use”, the use able to pay the most for space, will
ultimately occupy available space if market forces are unmitigated. Economic history has shown this to be true. • Of the four R&D companies the City has sited as examples of R&D it would like to see in West Berkeley,
three of the four are in West Berkeley. The fourth was here but appears to now be out of business. All four cite either successful private equity offerings of government and VC funding of between 1 and 10 million dollars. Industry and arts do not regularly receive this type of capitalization.

Facts - Why Protected Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space is also critically important to Manufacturing, Arts & Crafts, Recycling, Contracting, and Retail uses:
• All Protected Industrial space is intended as a pool of flexible space to provide habitat for Manufacturing, Warehouse, Wholesale Trade, Arts & Crafts, Recycling, & Contracting uses to locate and expand into. Many industrial and arts companies are here only because protected Warehouse and Wholesale Trade space was available when they looked to locate or expand in West Berkeley. Beyond industry and arts, numerous Berkeley retail companies also rely on their West Berkeley warehouses to operate economically and efficiently.

Facts – The West Berkeley Plan view of R&D and its relation to industrial and arts uses. How allowing R&D into protected space violates West Berkeley Plan and Berkeley General Plan Goals & Policies:
• The West Berkeley Plan is clear on the need to specifically locate R&D outside of the Protected Uses category: “While support for advanced services (research laboratories) ...is also important, these sectors are generally supported, rather than threatened, by market developments. Thus, the policy structure for these sectors should be different. The Plan clearly acknowledges that, unmitigated by the Protections, R&D’s more highly capitalized structure would result in the displacement of protected uses over time (Land Use – “Market forces ...strongly support the development of advanced services (e.g. research laboratories)”. The Protected Uses category is also meant to protect jobs for those without advanced education while the Plan recognizes that “...research activities generally provide jobs solely for the highly trained...” – Economic Goal 4.

Facts- The West Berkeley Plan and Berkeley General Plan are unequivocal in their language and policies intended to maintain an ethnically and economically diverse population and economy:
• Berkeley General Plan:
General Plan Economic Element Objectives: 7. Increase social and economic equity in land use decisions. Economic Development and Employment Element - Policy Background: ...skyrocketing property values and rents...threaten(ing) the economic, social, and cultural diversity that distinguishes Berkeley life
• Goal #2: To maintain Berkeley’s unique character and quality of life, Berkeley must strive to maintain the cultural, social, and economic diversity that is such an important aspect of the character of Berkeley. If Berkeley is to remain a diverse community with a wide range of races, incomes, cultures, and ideas, Berkeley must take steps to maintain... a range of jobs, and a variety of local goods and services. One major threat to Berkeley’s character and to its diversity is gentrification.

• West Berkeley Plan: The broadest Purposes of the Plan: Maintain the ethnic and economic diversity of West Berkeley's resident population. II. The Economic Rationale of the Plan - A. The Rationale Overall: The City's economic policy must seek to create
and maintain jobs for its citizens, most importantly for its citizens who would have the most difficulty obtaining jobs. Goal 5: Continue to create employment opportunities, especially for Berkeley and West Berkeley residents. It is particularly important to find these opportunities for economically disadvantaged Berkeley and W. Berkeley residents.

West Berkeley Project at City Council March 22nd - Please Attend

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:39:34 -0700

Council Chambers - 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way (between Center & Allston

At This Time No Master Use Permit (MUP) or Industrial Protection Issues
(R&D into Wholesale Trade/Warehouse Space) Projected for March 22 Council Meeting

**************************************************************************************************************************
• Important Issues To Be Addressed at the March 22nd Council Meeting • Reducing/Eliminating Parking Requirements, Easing Permitting for Art & Crafts, Allowing
Arts Performance, Instruction and Rehearsal Studios for Dance, Music, and Theater.
The Schedule Going Forward – Why We Don’t Always Get It Right: An ongoing challenge facing WEBAIC throughout the West Berkeley Project has been receiving timely notice as to when important issues are coming before the Planning Commission and Council. Though we make strenuous efforts to determine agenda items and notice them immediately, the City frequently changes the agenda and the notice we receive is often short. We apologize for any inconvenience resulting from these ongoing, less-than-ideal conditions.
NO Master Use Permit or Wholesale/Warehouse Industrial Protection Issues Expected March 22nd:
City Council meetings are scheduled for March 22nd and March 29th, after which Council breaks until April 26th. On Friday, March 11, Planning Director Dan Marks assured WEBAIC that he doesn’t intend Council to take up either the Master Use Permit or Wholesale Trade/Warehouse Industrial Protection issues on March 22nd. The Council’s Monday, March 15th agenda committee makes the final decisions, but we’re assuming at this point that the MUP and Industrial Protections won’t be addressed on the 22nd. WEBAIC will email an update on Monday the 15th verifying Council’s March 22nd agenda. The Council’s March 29th agenda is unknown to us at this time.
Important Issues Will Be Addressed at the March 22nd Council Meeting: The West Berkeley Project comprises many issues of varying levels of importance to the industrial and arts communities. While we have tracked and commented on all the issues, WEBAIC has been required to focus the majority of our efforts on just a few that are absolutely most critical to our sectors. The March 22nd meeting is scheduled to focus on the second tier issues, several of which do have very important consequences for industry and arts, particularly:
1.) The proposal to allow partial to full parking waivers for expansion of existing buildings and changes of use (including conversions of protected space) to more intensive uses while much of West Berkeley has severe parking problems.
2.) The Planning Commission has proposed Zoning Certificates (ZC), the over-the-counter permit, for Internet Retailers, R&D, and other uses, while still requiring Arts and Crafts Uses and Contractors of all sizes to obtain Administrative Use Permits (AUP) and Use Permits (UP – always requiring a public hearing).
3.) Itappearsthatartsperformance,instruction,andrehearsalstudiosdevotedtodance,music,&theaterusesarenot specifically permitted in any of the four West Berkeley M zones. This oversight should be fixed within this process.

AdditionalIssuestobeaddressedattheMarch22ndMeetingare: Mini-Storage,LotSize.Height/Story/FAR, Office Space/Incidental/Ancillary Space, Food Service, Childcare, Distances of Residences from Incompatible Uses, Warehouse Based Non-Store Retailers, Services to Buildings and Dwellings, Truck and Utility Trailer Rental & Leasing, Research & Development, Contractor, Visual & Aural Arts Production, Alternative Fuel/Charging Stations

Please contact WEBAIC staff at 910-0568 with any concerns about any of the above issues.

CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON WEST BERKELEY

Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:06:30 -0800

Informed Decisions Require Information 

Absence of Data Marks City Proposal To Open All Wholesale/Warehouse Space in MULI/MM to R&D
The City Council Is Considering a Planning Commission Proposal to open ALL protected Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space in the Mixed Use Light Industrial zone (MULI) and the Mixed Manufacturing zone (MM) to Research & Development uses. The West Berkeley Plan, historical evidence, and common sense all agree that when highly capitalized uses (R&D that typically pays 2-3X what Wholesale Trade/Warehouse uses pay) are allowed to occupy the same pool of space (protected space) as lower capitalized uses (existing Wholesale Trade and Warehouse companies), those highly capitalized uses can reasonably be expected to displace the lower capitalized uses and the good jobs those uses provide.
Basic Data is a Requirement for An Informed Decision: The decision whether to adopt this proposal which at its core is intended to displace existing, contributing, Berkeley companies and good jobs (particularly for citizens without a college education), should at a minimum be informed by facts that would allow decision makers and the public to know: 1.) How much protected Wholesale Trade/Warehouse space exists in the affected zones, 2.) Where the protected Wholesale Trade/Warehouse space in the affected zones is, 3.) What companies are located in protected Wholesale Trade/Warehouse space in affected zones, and 4.) How many employees work in these companies.
Additional categories of information that could be gathered to help inform a decision would be: 1.) What do the Wholesale Trade/Warehouse companies in protected space pay for space? 2.) What do existing Berkeley R&D companies pay for space? 3.) What is the place of the Wholesale Trade/Warehouse companies within West Berkeley’s dense economic network and what might the results be to Berkeley’s economy should they be displaced? 4.) If displaced by R&D, what would be the potential effects on Wholesale Trade/Warehouse companies and their employees?



Why City Proposal is Unnecessary & Destructive: WEBAIC contends that the Planning Commission’s proposal to open ALL protected Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space in the Mixed Use Light Industrial zone (MULI) and the Mixed Manufacturing zone (MM) to Research & Development is 1.) Unnecessary, because a significant amount of existing space now permits R&D and hundreds of thousands of sq ft on the Master Use Permit sites are being opened to R&D, and 2.) Destructive, because the 2–3X greater amount that R&D typically pays for space (compared to industrial uses) is projected by the West Berkeley Plan (and historical evidence) to result in displacement of Wholesale Trade and Warehouse companies and jobs. This projected displacement is not only expected, but is the core purpose of the Commission’s proposal - without displacement to create space for R&D the proposal has failed in its purpose.
Opening Protected Wholesale Trade/Warehouse Space Restricts Wide Range of Companies & Good Jobs: As protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space has facilitated the location and expansion of numerous manufacturing businesses, permitting R&D to occupy this space can be expected to limit manufacturing growth as well as limit new location of Contractors and Arts/Crafts that the new proposals (initiated by WEBAIC) allow into protected space for the first time.Lack of Data on Wholesale/Warehouse Space Continues West Berkeley Project Pattern: Neither the above WEBAIC contentions or differing opinions on these proposals are served by the almost total lack of data supplied by City staff regarding Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space, companies, and jobs in West Berkeley. If a process is undertaken with an assumed and projected outcome, the costly allocation of resources to ascertain facts leading up to and surrounding that outcome may be viewed as wasteful and unnecessary. This may be where we find ourselves today.
Data Collection Falls To WEBAIC: Without staff supplying research on numerous issues, to assure that a minimum of factual information would inform West Berkeley Project discussions and decisions, it fell to WEBAIC to 1.) determine the numbers of different kinds of companies in the industrial sector, to 2.) calculate the percentage of West Berkeley property covered at several different Master Use Permit thresholds, to 3.) supply maps showing MULI & MM property without industrial protections, and to 4.) bring to the staff/Commission attention independent, applicable, academic and governmental studies.
To undertake a major land use decision (opening Wholesale /Warehouse protections) likely to affect scores of companies and an estimated 1000+ jobs without a quantitative underpinning is not reflective of a serious process and not respectful of the millions of dollars and decades of work invested by these companies and their employees into West Berkeley. As it is unimaginable that the City would propose policies that could ultimately displace most Telegraph Avenue or College and Ashby merchants without robust data to justify such policies, so it is unimaginable that the City is contemplating just such a policy for a key West Berkeley economic sector without data to inform its decision.

The Minimum Data Required For Making An Informed Decision As To How Much Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space Should Be Opened To Research and Development:
Decision makers and the public need to know how much protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space exists in West Berkeley, where this space is, how many and what companies occupy this space, and how many people are employed in these companies. Only then can a truly informed and responsible decision be made as to how much of this protected space to open up to R&D.
1. Where is the Wholesale Trade/Warehouse space subject to the Planning Commission’s proposal in MULI/MM?
Identifying the protected Wholesale Trade and Warehouse spaces in the MULI & MM is the first necessary step to identify how many square feet these spaces contain, what companies, and how many jobs occupy these spaces.
2.) How many square feet are currently in Wholesale Trade & Warehouse uses in: A. The Mixed Use Light Industrial Zone (MULI) and the Mixed Manufacturing Zone (MM) subject to the City proposal?
B. The Manufacturing and Mixed Use Residential Zones not subject to the City proposal?
The real estate figures from the major brokers show 1.9 to 2.3 million square feet of Warehouse space in all West Berkeley, but this can be warehouse space used by Bayer or other manufacturing companies and it also appears to include the huge self storage facilities. It also does not include all Wholesale Trade space. The actual amount of space being occupied strictly by Wholesale Trade and Warehouse companies appears to be much less than the 1.9 - 2.3 million sq ft figures.
WEBAIC’s 100,000 sq ft R&D expansion proposal has been characterized as only providing 5% of existing protected Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space for R&D, but removing self-storage (space unusable by R&D) and space already being productively used by manufacturers could cut down greatly on the total Wholesale Trade and Warehouse actually available for R&D, thus making 100,000 sq ft a much greater percentage of Wholesale Trade/Warehouse space.
3. What companies occupy protected Wholesale/Warehouse space in the MULI/MM zones?
Only by identifying the companies in these spaces will we understand their place in West Berkeley’s and the City’s economy and their links to other local business that may be impacted by their displacement.
4. How many people are employed in the companies that occupy protected Wholesale/Warehouse space in the MULI/MM zones?
It is critically important to understand how many jobs are in the companies to understand the nature of the employment that may be lost due to displacement

CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON WEST BERKELEY

Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:17:47 -0800

Keep the Industrial Protections – No Housing In the Industrial Zones

Support the WEBAIC Compromise Cap Proposal on Protected Space To:
Preserve Industrial & Artisan Lands, Enterprises, & Good Jobs



WEBAIC Positions to Achieve Responsible, Sustainable, & Equitable Development:

• 1.) WEBAIC Compromise Proposal on Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse space: YES to: Opening up 100,000 sq ft of protected Wholesale Trade/Warehouse space for R&D. NO to: Opening up ALL protected Wholesale Trade/Warehouse space for R&D.

• 2.) No Housing or Retail in M, MM, & MULI Manufacturing Zones on Master Use Permit (MUP) sites

• 3.) No Office Parks in the Manufacturing (M) Zone on Master Use Permit sites •

• 4.) Yes to 6 Master Use Permits in 10 Years – No to unlimited expansion of Master Use Permit sites •

• 5.) Maintain Existing Height & Density Standards

• 6.) No Full Parking Waivers for MUPs

WEBAIC Compromise Proposal on Protected Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Space: Now-protected Warehouse and Wholesale Trade space provides not only 1200+ good jobs in approximately 50 companies, it also provides space for new manufacturing companies to move into and for existing companies to expand. With new proposals originated by WEBAIC and on the table Tuesday at the City Council, Arts & Crafts uses and all Contractors will now be able to occupy protected Wholesale Trade and Warehouse space. If forced to compete for this space with highly capitalized R&D, all these uses that provide multiple benefits to the City and population will either face displacement from Berkeley or be unable to locate here in the first place.
WEBAIC has already agreed with the Planning Commission to give up hundreds of thousands of square feet on six large sites (Master Use Permit sites) to accommodate R&D uses. 2+ million more sq ft can be built on these sites for R&D. In addition there are several million sq ft in West Berkeley where R&D is already allowed to locate.
The Planning Commission’s proposal to open up ALL protected warehouse & wholesale trade space in the MULI & MM zones (the majority of West Berkeley property) is unnecessary and destructive of the existing robust industrial and arts economy and culture. The City has made no effort to find out how much of this space there is, where it is, and what companies and jobs occupy these spaces and are therefore at risk. To make a decision of this magnitude without this basic information is unfortunately indicative

City Council Public Hearing on West Berkeley Project Will Be Held Jan 25th

Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:45:03 -0800

Tuesday, January 25th, 7pm, Council Chambers - 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way (between Center & Allston)

• Please Attend •

The Future of West Berkeley’s (and the City’s)
Sustainable, Productive, & Equitable Economy and Culture
To Be Decided

The City Council’s January 18th Agenda meeting was attended by the Chair and staff of WEBAIC. This committee voted to hold the City Council Public Hearing on the West Berkeley Project’s proposed Plan amendments and Zoning changes on January 25th. As noted in previous newsletters, WEBAIC believes this short notice (one week true notice from today) is inadequate and disrespectful of the time and effort hundreds of citizens have put into the West Berkeley Project process, particularly in light of the disconcerting fact that the City never noticed all West Berkeley businesses and residences that large-scale, widespread changes to their area might be instituted as part of this process.

The positive results of the Agenda Committee meeting were the decisions that 1.) The Public Hearing will be held open for a second hearing meeting on either February 8th or 15th and 2.), those who speak at the first hearing will not be denied the opportunity to speak at the second. It is best to attend both hearings but please plan to attend at least one. It is possible a third meeting in March, not officially a Public Hearing, will see the Council vote.

After three years of strongly advocating for a sustainable, local serving, and equitable economy and culture, West Berkeley’s industrial, artisan, arts, and residential communities have arrived at the final series of meetings where the ultimate decisions will be made. While certain issues have been negotiated and agreed upon to most parties’ satisfaction during this process, there remain a number of issues critical to the long-term viability of West Berkeley industry and arts yet to be resolved.

Water the Tree: Your presence at the upcoming hearings can make the difference for your community, your environment, your business, your job, your home, and those of your neighbors. We’re fortunate to live where our efforts to shape our future, though sometimes appearing futile when measured against powerful forces, can bear fruit - but we have to water that tree with our presence and our voice to taste it. That it may bear fruit for years to come, please join us in watering the vibrant, community-nourishing tree that is West Berkeley on January 25th.

The Most Critical Positions to Maintain West Berkeley’s Equitable, Succesful Balance of Uses

1.) Support the WEBAIC Compromise Cap Proposal on Wholesale Trade/Warehouse space;
As part of the West Berkeley Project WEBAIC has agreed with the City to entitle six Master Use Permits for large sites (total 30+ acres) over the next 10 years, with essentially all 2.5 - 3.8 million square feet of potential development being allowed for R&D. Additionally, present zoning allows approximately another 3 million sq ft of existing space to be utilized for R&D.

The above figures reveal that the Planning Commission’s zoning proposal to open up the industrial protections on ALL WHOLESALE TRADE & WAREHOUSE SPACE in the MULI and MM Zones to R&D is unnecessary and destructive of good jobs and vital economic activity. The approximately 50 West Berkeley Wholesale Trade & Warehouse companies and their 1100+ jobs are a key component of West Berkeley's successful mixed-use economy, providing valuable goods and services, revenue, and good jobs to our citizens without a college education.

2.) No Housing in the M, MM, & MULI Manufacturing Zones.

3.) No Stand Alone Offices in the Manufacturing (M) Zone.

4.) Yes to 6 Master Use Permits in 10 Years – No to unlimited expansion of the Master Use Permit sites.

5.) Maintain Existing Height & Density Standards.

7 Reasons Why A Public Hearing on Plan Amendments Should Not Be Held January 25th

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:59:48 -0800

Why A Separate Public Hearing Should Be Held On Proposed Zoning Changes

The Zoning Proposals & Plan Amendments are Substantively Different, Requiring Two Separate Public Hearings

The West Berkeley Project resulted in proposed changes to both the Zoning Ordinance and the West Berkeley Plan section of the Berkeley General Plan. Some of these proposed Plan changes mirror the proposed Zoning changes, but many of the Zoning changes are of a level of detail and substance not addressed by the Plan changes.

Because of these differences, a Public Hearing on only the Plan changes (as now noticed for the 25th) does not fulfill the need of the public or Council to adequately address the substantive Zoning changes.   Therefore, two separate Public Hearings are required – one for Plan Amendments and one for Zoning changes. A single hearing can’t possibly do these numerous, complex and disparate sets of issues justice. The Public Hearing notice for the 25th Plan Amendment hearing (Council’s Agenda Committee decides on the 19th if the hearing will actually occur), states that Council will hear “comment” on the Zoning changes at this hearing. Taking “comment” on issues is not a Public Hearing on them, doesn’t officially address them, and is inadequate to make final decisions on issues of great consequence.

                                                   7 Reasons In Brief:

1. Separate Public Hearing Needed on Proposed, Critical Zoning Changes, Not Just Proposed Plan
    Amendments: Zoning Allowances - Residences in M Zones, 75’ Height, FAR 3, Office/Childcare in M Zone, etc.

2. Public Hearing Should Not Be Same Night As WB Project Workshop– Doesn’t allow Council adequate time to learn about & consider the numerous, complex Rezoning Proposals & Plan Amendments.

3. No Complete Staff Report to Public w/ Rezoning + Plan Amendment Proposals to Public until 3-4 days Before Public Hearing.

4. Only One Week “Real” Notice for Public Hearing- Inadequate for a hearing addressing the most far-reaching City land use changes in decades.

5. No Full Notice of Public Hearing or of West Berkeley Project Process To All Affected Businesses & Residents.

6. Public Hearing Notice for 25th Doesn’t Meet New Zoning Proposals’ Own Standards for Noticing –
    Proposed noticing requirements for Master Use Permit (one part of WB Project) are twice the time period given for 25th Public Hearing to approve entire West Berkeley Project w/ all proposed changes, including 6 MUP permits.

7. Not only would a more adequate and respectful noticing give the public a proper opportunity to
    exercise its right to engage in the democratic process, it may result in a greater understanding of
    contentious issues, and possible resolution to them within the existing process.

                                                                          7 Reasons in Full:

1. Separate Public Hearing Needed on Proposed Zoning Changes, Not Just Proposed Plan Amendments:

At present it doesn’t appear City Council intends to hold a Public Hearing on the proposed Zoning changes, even though it is these changes that contain many of the most far-reaching and controversial provisions, such as allowing residences in industrial zones, freestanding offices in the Manufacturing (M) Zone, and 75 ft heights. To conduct three years of process on contentious issues without many being resolved and not have the ultimate adjudicating body, the City Council, take them up in a separate, proper Public Hearing context is not up to the standards of our community’s progressive democratic heritage.

Some Proposed Zoning Changes Not Directly Addressed by Plan Amendments: Levels of Discretion for All Use Changes. Master Use Permit Issues:
75’ Height FAR 3, Full Parking Waivers, Floating of Uses: Allowance of Residences into Industrial Zones – Inadequate Findings, Allowance of freestanding offices in the M Zone, Reduced Setbacks between Industry and Residences, Allowance of San Pablo C-W (Regional Retail-WEBAIC) into MUR

2. Public Hearing Should Not Be Same Night As Workshop on WB Project – Doesn’t Allow Council Adequate Time to Learn About & Consider the Numerous, Complex Rezoning & Plan Amendment Proposals.

The proposal to hold the Workshop to familiarize Council with the complex and numerous proposals on the same night as a holding the Public Hearing on those issues is very unusual and troubling, pointing to a injudicious rush to judgment on issues of great import.

3. No Release of Complete Staff Report with Rezoning & Plan Proposals to Public until 3-4 days before Public Hearing:

To WEBAIC’s knowledge there has never been a complete staff report encompassing all proposed changes in their final form released to the public. From our understanding, staff intends to have this available 3-4 days before the Public Hearing, an entirely inadequate time to examine this document in its entirety.

4. One week “real” notice inadequate for Public Hearing addressing most far-reaching land use changes in decades:

To notice the most important final approval meeting in a three year process with only the minimum requirements is a sad commentary on the West Berkeley Project, in which WEBAIC has been required to remind the City in an ongoing manner to fulfill its pledge to create a meaningful mechanism for its businesses and citizens to weigh in on issues materially affecting them.

5. Inadequate West Berkeley Project outreach to affected business and residents continues with rushed final approval process.

Unlike during The West Berkeley Plan process, to our knowledge there has never been a notice sent by the City to all West Berkeley businesses, residents, and institutions alerting them to the fact that this rezoning process would reshape West Berkeley and affect their lives and livelihoods for decades to come. The West Berkeley process made this outreach several times to assure those affected would have their democratic opportunity to participate.

Not only were Mixed Use Residential (MUR) residents not invited to participate, they had to demand a seat at the table after they became aware that proposed changes could greatly affect them. Even after being allowed into the process they were told the changes would not affect them, even though the MUR zone was slated for huge increases in building heights and densities, as well as the location of up-to-that-time prohibited uses.

6. WB Project’s Zoning Proposal Noticing Requirements for one Master Use Permit (MUP) are twice the notice being given for the final Public Hearing approving the entire West Berkeley Project Zoning and Plan Changes, including the six Master Use Permits.

The West Berkeley Project Zoning changes propose a 30 day noticing requirement for a Hearing on a Master Use Permit, while the hearing to approve the entire process of which the Master Use Permit is only one part gives only a 14 day notice to the public. Logic would expect that the approval of the entire process that will allow mass development and far reaching use changes (well over 600% of what one MUP would allow) would demand at least the same noticing as is being required for one of its smaller, entitled component parts.

7. Not only would a more adequate and respectful noticing give the public a proper opportunity to exercise its right to engage in the democratic process, it may result in a greater understanding of contentious issues, and possible resolution to them within the existing process.

West Berkeley Works!

West Berkeley Plan & Zoning Key to Present Vibrancy, Success, & Community Equity

West Berkeley is a highly successful area with economic, cultural, and residential vitality – not perfect, but in many ways a model of what a mixed-use area can be. With low industrial vacancy rates and approximately 16,000 jobs, half in industry & arts and half in scientific, technical, professional, management, and retail fields, the area is alive with productive, sustainable activity. This success is largely the result of a forward-thinking City planning process involving broad-based citizen/business/ government/labor/faith participation in the 80’s and 90’s that created the West Berkeley Plan. This policy document took a fine-grained approach to this most complex area of the City, instituting policies recognizing the need to very carefully balance competing interests to achieve the highest community good. This meant both encouraging market forces when they would clearly result in broad-based benefits and mitigating them when their excesses could degrade economic vibrancy (i.e. the dot-com bust) and community equity.

Along with being the workshop and economic and cultural engine of our City, West Berkeley is the key to our community’s equity and diversity through being the only part of Berkeley providing a significant number (approx 7000) of family wage blue and green collar jobs (available to the one-third of our population without a four year college degree. A substantial percentage of these positions are filled by people of color, who in our City and nationally have significantly lower rates of high school and college completion, and therefore less opportunity to find good job, especially in this economy.

Business Community & Citizenry Deserve
Adequately Noticed & Meaningful Opportunity to Address City Council

The Planning staff and Planning Commission have forwarded rezoning proposals and Plan amendments to the City Council that would greatly, some would say radically, alter this fine-grained, carefully balanced zoning largely responsible for West Berkeley’s success. It is no exaggeration to say that the proposed zoning changes stand to physically, economically, culturally, and socially alter West Berkeley and the City fundamentally for 100 years. Many of the proposed changes are positive, while some of them collectively carry within them the possibility of the loss of our overall robust diversity of economic activity, significant loss of our sustainable production and distribution economy, diminution of arts activity, the walling off of Berkeley from the Bay with a row of 75 foot towers lining the City’s edge (75 ft heights become 80-85’ heights with elevator shafts and HVAC piping/housings and attendant screens), and a wave of gentrification that could be the final blow to our rich economic and ethnic diversity that makes our City so much the vibrant and compelling place it is.

Council To Take Comment/Deliberate on Rezoning Proposals Referred by Planning Commission

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:05:58 -0800

The City of Berkeley has noticed a Public Hearing on the West Berkeley Project before the City Council on January 25th. If held on the 25th, this hearing will take place at 7pm at City Council chambers at 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

Even with this notice, it will not be certain whether this Public Hearing is officially “on” until the Council’s agenda committee meets this coming Tuesday the 18th to approve/disapprove of the hearing date. This timing represents a completely inadequate one week “true” notice for a Public Hearing to address Planning Commission referred changes to the West Berkeley Plan and zoning that comprise the most important and far-reaching changes to land use possibly in the entire City and certainly within West Berkeley in likely a lifetime.

While the noticing in timing and form is inadequate (the “courtesy” notices sent out to email lists today didn’t give the address of where the hearing would take place), it is worth noting that although the West Berkeley Project process has been ongoing for three years, unlike the West Berkeley Plan process, to our knowledge there has never been a notice sent by the City to all West Berkeley businesses, residents, and institutions alerting them to the fact that this rezoning process that would reshape West Berkeley and affect their lives and livelihoods for decades to come was taking place.

The above-noted lack of public outreach and inadequate noticing added to the fact that WEBAIC was last told by the City that this Public Hearing would likely take place in March results in what we consider to be a seriously inadequate manner in which to conduct the final decision-making process on issues of great import to our citizenry, economy, equity, and environment. We would hope that a City process that thus far did not take adequate steps to proactively include affected businesses and residents would take great pains in this final stage to go the extra mile to assure that all are timely noticed and have a proper opportunity to participate in decisions that will affect them and their families.

The extremely unusual circumstance of holding a 5:30 Workshop at Council on critical City-wide issues that will be addressed at a Public Hearing on the same evening does not meet this standard. The purpose of this type of Workshop is to familiarize Council with the extremely complex issues at hand and to give them adequate time to consider their complexities before the Public Hearing normally held at a later date.

Therefore, WEBAIC respectfully requests that the City hold the West Berkeley Project public hearing not on the same night as the Workshop in order to give Council adequate time to consider the issues at hand and to allow the citizenry adequate time to prepare for and to be able to attend the public hearing.

WEBAIC requests that all citizenry be prepared to attend the potential public hearing on the 25th and we will do our absolute best to keep you appraised as to developments on this topic.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Underpinning the West Berkeley Plan and the zoning implementing it are the industrial and arts protection policies that assure that these sectors and their important activities and employment remain a robust part of the West Berkeley economy. The Planning Commission has referred to the Council several proposals to change both the zoning and the West Berkeley Plan (as part of the City’s General Plan) that seriously undermine various industrial protection policies (that will also negatively affect the arts). WEBAIC requests that you attend the meeting on the 25th if it takes place and support the following WEBAIC positions:

1.) Support the WEBAIC Compromise Cap Proposal on Wholesale Trade/Warehouse space – No to opening up ALL protected Wholesale Trade/Warehouse space. WEBAIC’s proposal opens up 100,000 sq ft of protected Wholesale Trade/Warehouse Space to R&D, not all protected Wholesale Trade/Warehouse space in the MULI and MM Zones.

The Planning Commission is proposing opening up the industrial protections on ALL WHOLESALE TRADE & WAREHOUSE SPACE in the MULI and MM Zones to R&D uses. The approximately 50 West Berkeley Wholesale Trade & Warehouse companies and their 1100+ jobs are a key component of West Berkeley's successful mixed-use economy, providing valuable goods and services, revenue, and good paying jobs to the significant portion of our population without a college education. A Metropolitan Transportation Commission study reveals that forcing these companies out of the area will have significant negative consequences to the Bay's environment, economy, and equity.

WEBAIC has already agreed with the City to give six Master Use Permits for large sites over the next 10 years, with the industrially protected land on these sites allowed to be used for R&D. This greenlights several million sq ft for R&D. This sq footage added to the 25% of all existing industrially protected space now allowed to be converted to R&D, plus the large percentage of never-protected West Berkeley property (available for R&D) reveal the vast amount of land (several million sq ft) that R&D can occupy and demonstrates the unnecessary and destructive nature of the Planning Commission’s proposal.

2.) No to Allowing Residential Housing in the Manufacturing Zones (M, MM, MULI):
The Planning Commission has proposed allowing residences to be located in the industrially zoned portions of Master Use Permit sites. Intentionally placing housing and industry in close proximity to each other is the poorest of public policies, encouraging contentious civic relationships, legal conflicts and the ultimate loss of industrial activity and jobs. Unequivocally prohibited by both the West Berkeley Plan and the West Berkeley Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, it is both terrible public policy and legally indefensible.

3.) No Office Parks in the Manufacturing (M) Zone:
Staff has stated that allowing office parks in the M Zone is not their intention, yet their present proposals permit it. Like the disallowance of housing, offices are prohibited in the Manufacturing (M) Zone and by the West Berkeley Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. Office uses, except associated with industry, are incompatible with, and extremely destabilizing to industry in the M Zone

4.) Yes to Six Master Use Permits in Ten Years – No to the unlimited potential expansion of the Master Use Permit.
WEBAIC has agreed with the City to allow six Master Use Permits in the next ten years, which would greenlight several million square feet of new development. In order to retain the West Berkeley Plan’s intended balance between uses, the application of these MUP permits should be limited to the property the applicant owns at the time of their MUP application so there is no unlimited applicability. This allows the MUP approval process to properly focus its examination on the site as it exists at the time of approval. Additionally, beyond the four acre threshold now agreed to for an MUP, the City has proposed that ALL single blocks under one ownership be eligible for the MUP. This has no precedent in the West Berkeley Plan and is an unacceptable and extreme expansion of the permit.

5.) Maintain Existing Height & Density Standards: No justification has been given for the extreme expansion of allowable heights and densities in staff proposals. Simply greater profit does not justify the projected degradation of the workability and livability of the existing environment. These heights and densities facilitate office and residential towers that create extreme land value differentials that only encourage the further loss of industrial and arts activities and jobs.

Regarding tomorrow's (Wednesday, December 8) Planning Commission meeting addressing the West Berkeley Project.

Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:58:37 -0800

The West Berkeley Project Master Use Permit will be addressed at a Planning Commission meeting tomorrow at 7pm at the North Berkeley Senior Center at Hearst and MLK. At the October 13th final PC public hearing commissioners voted to modify both the substance and language of various staff proposals relating to the Master Use Permit.

Staff has put out a report (attached here) that identifies and contains what they understand to be the changes to their original proposals that the Commission directed them to write. This document with the new language will be presented and discussed tomorrow.

Although there are issues of importance to WEBAIC addressed in this document, none of the them is new and most of them are minor changes to bad policy, rendering the policies themselves either slightly better or slightly worse, leaving them still as bad policies. WEBAIC will be addressing these policies destructive of industry and arts in detail at the upcoming City Council hearings on the West Berkeley Project in January or February. While your presence will be strongly encouraged at the upcoming Council hearings, it is not required at this Wednesday's PC meeting.

In shorthand, the issues being addressed tomorrow:

On a Master Use Permit (MUP) site with Commercial West Berkeley (C-W) and Mixed Use Residential (MUR) property, how much and under what circumstances will C-W zone retail and housing be allowed in the MULI, M, MM, & MUR portions of the site, and how much and under what circumstances will MUR housing be allowed in the industrial zone portions of an MUP site.

The changes also address the proposal that a full city block under single ownership be eligible for an MUP and the provision that an MUP can be 49.999% in the MUR and still receive this permit.

It is WEBAIC's contention that:
1.) none of the C-W or MUR retail or housing uses belong in the industrial zones,
2.) that these proposals violate the West Berkeley Plan and Berkeley General Plan,
3.) that this proposal was not properly studied in the DEIR for its potential negative
     environmental impacts, and
4.) that these proposals are destructive of the robust industrial and arts economy and
     culture and its attendant contributions to our City's equity and environmental
     sustainability.
5.) The West Berkeley Plan targeted sites of "at least 5 acres" for the Large Site
      Development Process, or MUP, and never proposed that city blocks (most all less
      than 4 acres) under one ownership be eligible for an MUP. This is a gross
      expansion of this permit's applicability with absolutely no demonstrated need or
      rationale and with no analysis done by staff of its potential implications. It is simply a
      stealth way to apply the permit to an unlimited number of smaller properties, further
      subverting the West Berkeley Plan.
6.) The MUP was never intended to apply broadly to the MUR district, either by the
      West Berkeley Plan or City directive. An MUP that is almost half in the MUR is a serious distortion
      of the original intentions for the MUP.

Planning Commission Forwards Proposals Destructive of Companies, Jobs, and Neighborhoods

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:53:54 -0700

Planning Commission Proposals: Remove Protections from Wholesale Trade & Warehouse: Jobs & At Risk Allow Housing (& Retail) In Industrial Zones - Staff Admits Proposal Violates WB Plan
On July 28th the Planning Commission moved several proposals forward to be voted upon by the Commission at their proposed September 22 West Berkeley Project final Public Hearing. This hearing will address all issues large and small that have found their way into Planning staff proposals over the last three years. Many of these proposals will greatly affect West Berkeley's future, but two proposals relating to the Master Use Permits and industrial protections pose serious long-term threats to the future of industry and arts as well as to the West Berkeley residential community in the Mixed Use Residential (MUR) and R1A Core Residential Zones. To help positively shape the future of our neighborhood, community, and City, Please Attend the Sept 22 Hearing.

❍ Proposal to Remove Protections from Wholesale Trade & Warehouse Uses ❍
Illegal Proposal? The West Berkeley Plan protects industrial uses (including Wholesale Trade & Warehouse) because of the good jobs, important goods & services, and stable revenue they provide. The Commission's proposal to remove Wholesale Trade & Warehouse protections violates the West Berkeley Plan and wasn't studied in the West Berkeley Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) as legally required to determine its potential environmental impacts.
Destructive of Equity & Diversity: Beyond the illegalities of violating the Plan and instituting policies without studying their impacts, this is a revenue, company, and jobs-destroying initiative (approx 50 Wholesale Trade/Warehouse Companies w/ 1000+ jobs in W. Berkeley) proposed in a recession, targeting those working people & jobs already hit hardest not only by this downturn but by national economic policies over the last 30 years. This proposal can be clearly seen as a continuation of those policies actualizing the transfer of wealth in our country from the large majority in the middle and bottom to a tiny minority in the top few percentage points, to the extent that inequality is now at its greatest level in the U.S since the 1920's.
Why blue/green collar jobs? The West Berkeley Plan waxes eloquent and factual about the importance of keeping industrial, working class blue collar jobs (green collar jobs weren't described then but these did and do exist in Wholesale Trade/Warehouse companies) in West Berkeley. This was done in service of maintaining the integrity of the fabric of the interwoven industrial/arts economy, providing good paying jobs to people without college and to disadvantaged populations, providing needed goods and services to the populace, providing a stable source or revenue to the City, and to maintain the economic and ethnic diversity of West Berkeley and Berkeley as a whole.
Equity & Diversity in the Plan: Following are West Berkeley Plan & Berkeley General Plan statements on equity and diversity: "WB Plan Land Use: ...Purposes of the Plan: 2. "Maintain the ethnic and economic diversity of West Berkeley's resident population." WB Plan Economic Element: 7. "Increase social and economic equity in land use decisions." Berkeley General Plan Goal 2: Rationale: "To maintain Berkeley’s unique character and quality of life, Berkeley must strive to maintain the cultural, social, and economic diversity that is such an important aspect of the character of Berkeley. If Berkeley is to remain a diverse community with a wide range of races, incomes, cultures, and ideas, Berkeley must take steps to maintain an adequate supply of decent, affordable housing, a range of jobs, and a variety of local goods and services.Policy:PromoteaStrongIndustrialBaseandLiving-WageJobs".BerkeleyEconomy:"...skyrocketing property values and rents..bring(ing) prosperity to some but also threaten(ing) the economic, social, and cultural diversity that distinguishes Berkeley life." Land Use - Summary: "The Plan celebrates and strives to maintain both the diversity ofresidents and...business activity in West Berkeley, in the face of forces which might sharply reduce that diversity." Berkeley General Plan: "One major threat to Berkeley’s character and to its diversity is gentrification." General Plan: Land Use Objective: Maintain the character of Berkeley as a...diverse...place to live and work.
West Berkeley Industry - The Key to Equity & Diversity: The above quotes aren't statements of opinion. They form the basisoftheGoalsandPoliciesofthetwoPlanswithlegaljurisdictionoverWestBerkeleyLandUsepolicy. Theproposed removal of the Wholesale Trade & Warehouse protections, instituted specifically for the purposes of ensuring Berkeley's equity and diversity through the maintainance of blue collar jobs for those of modest means and education, violates not only the relevant Plans, but the spirit of social justice and fairness our City is supposed to be famous for and claims as its legacy. The Plan makes it real.
Since the West Berkeley industrial economy is the only place in Berkeley providing a significant amount of family-wage jobs for people without college (1/3 of Berkeley's population doesn't have a 4 year degree), the preservation and expansion of these sectors and jobs is key to the ethnic and economic diversity of Berkeley and the region, especially since the percentage of the African American, Hispanic, and Asian populations with a college degree is significantly less than that of the "white" population. The Plans details these populations as being significantly employed in these jobs and sectors.
WB Plan: "Vigilance is needed to maintain a balance among...uses." Once industrial space (and its jobs) are gone, it's gone, forever. This results from the same economic forces claiming productive farmland for subdivisions and virgin forest for resorts-land value profitability. West Berkeley's industrial & arts protections weren't instituted for recessions when vacancy rates rise in all sectors and land value and rental pressures temporarily recede. Protections are instituted to buffer industrial & arts uses from economic pressures typically existing in West Berkeley, pressures that would force them out, impoverishing our community in numerous fundamental ways. Just as the forecast capacity of land to produce crops isn't based on temporary drought conditions, neither should West Berkeley's future be determined by aberrant economic conditions.
Inthisatypicaleconomicmoment,theseprotectionsmayappearunnecessary,butthisviewignoreshistory. Withitscentral Bay Area location, name cache, access to freeways, and UC Berkeley presence, , intense pressure on West Berkeley land value consistently returns (West Berkeley historically - and now - has the highest industrial rents of all East Bay cities). In many ways the protections are similar to constitutional rights, in that they exist not for those times when rights aren't challenged or pressures for displacement aren't present, but precisely for those times when these challenges and pressures do exist, pressures that in this case would have hugely negative economic, environmental, and social consequences for our City, should they be allowed to prevail unmitigated by the protections.
❍ Proposal Allowing Housing In M Zones and Regional Retail in M & MUR Zones on MUPs ❍
In a violation of the West Berkeley Plan that even Planning Manger Sanderson acknowledges, staff is moving forward with a proposal to allow residences in the industrial zones on Master Use Permit properties. The West Berkeley Plan & Berkeley General Plan are unequivocal in their prohibitions against housing in the industrial zones: WB Plan: "In Manufacturing, Mixed Manufacturing, and Mixed Use Light Industrial, residential uses are not permitted. No new dwelling units may be constructed or created in any of these districts." This is one of many clear prohibitions in the Plan.
The West Berkeley Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), tasked with describing the Project's proposals and studying their environmental impacts, states: "revisions to permitted uses would not include allowing housing", "The West Berkeley Project does not change the regulations for residential uses", "uses that might lead to conflicts with existing uses, such as housing, are not proposed to be allowed under the West Berkeley Project." "No new residential uses will be permitted in the district (MULI)." What more is there to say? What can staff be thinking?
The above restrictions would make it appear that pursuing housing in the M Zones is a waste of time unless staff is prepared to redo the West Berkeley DEIR, amend the West Berkeley Plan, and amend Berkeley General Plan, all extremely expensive and time consuming. So why are we here? This quixotic exercise on staff's part appears to be an effort to satisfy Rich RobbinsofWarehamCorporationandDougHerst,ownerofthePeerless(fullyoccupied)industrialfactorysite. Bothwantto put housing in the industrial zones on their projected Master Use Permit (MUP) sites even though they're already allowed to build housing on their Mixed Use Residential (MUR) and Commercial (CW) Zone property on those very MUP properties.
The West Berkeley Plan committee drew zone boundaries meticulously so as not to create future conflicts. That almost no conflicts have arisen due to those lines attests to their efficacy. Now, to satisfy developers already allowed to build housing in appropriate zones on their property, but don't want to, the City is jumping through tortured semantic hoops to make these developers' dreams come true, no matter how destructive they are to the existing and future industrial economy & jobs.
2
Volumes have been devoted to this subject, but suffice it to say that placing housing next to industry is a violation of Planning 101, not to mention a violation of the principles of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, Pratt Institute's Center for Community and Environmental Development Report: “New York City Manufacturing Land Use and Zoning Initiative: Making it in New York”, etc., etc. To ignore this gold standard wisdom is to ignore history and accepted planning practice, and to opt for irate residents, lost companies and jobs, diminished economic activity, and lawsuits between conflicting uses.
Staff's two proposal options before the Commission on Housing & Retail in the M/MM/MULI/MUR Zones:
Option 2C would "allow the uses (residential & retail) to float within the proposed site", essentially allowing the developer to put the uses wherever they want, with the caveat that they should be "compatible with the surrounding land uses, both within and outside the site", whatever that means and whoever determines it? The staff report continues that under this option "Developers would have more flexibility in designing a “campus” atmosphere for the overall site, but might allow residential uses to intrude into industrial areas over time, which would conflict with the West Berkeley Plan." (be illegal).
Option 2A. "would anchor the CW/MUR uses and development standards to the underlying zone." Staff's reference to the illegality of 2C would seem to indicate their preference for this option. Staff's description is worth quoting in its entirety: "This second option would prevent further intrusion of residential uses into industrial areas, thereby providing no new impetus for Berkeley’s industrial lands to morph into commercial or residential properties. However, this option might allow too little flexibility in site planning and might preclude some opportunities to improve the separation between existing residential and industrial land uses." How allowing residential uses (anchored or not) into the industrial zones would "prevent further intrusion of residential uses into industrial areas" and "improve the separation between existing residential and industrial land uses." has not been revealed. Planning staff may not have yet completed the "Magic for Land Use Planners" workshop making this possible. Although we hope the rabbit won't be hurt in the process, it seems inevitable.
As staff admits that 2C is illegal (No new dwelling units may be constructed or created in any of these districts" the Plan), how the stipulation of "anchoring" housing in M zones to housing in MUR/CW wondrously renders industrial zone housing legal requires semantic contortionism (see advanced yoga manual) and conclusions heretofore only found in Lewis Carroll.
ProposalsAllowRegionalRetailinMUR&MZones. Beyondhouseig,staffproposesallowingfull-scaleregionalretail(as allowed on University, San Pablo, & Ashby) to locate in the M Zones (where it's prohibited) and the MUR zones, where retail is now appropriately limited to "neighborhood-serving". With none of the MUR zones more than a few blocks from a commercial corridor, access to goods and services is easily facilitated while attendant traffic is appropriately focused on the commercial corridors and kept out of the neighborhoods. In service to developers wanting "flexibility to design a campus atmosphere", it appears staff have determined that productive economic activity, jobs, and neighborhood livability must pay the price and that violating Plan policy prioritizing retail on Commercial corridors is a minor inconvenience.
Proposals allow Big-box residential in the MUR: Staff's proposal additionaly permits Commercial corridor residential densities to be built in both the M Zones and the Mixed Use Residential Zone. These densities (i.e. 2700 San Pablo), are about 33% greater than now allowed in the MUR, which on many blocks are single family homes. The MUR already is one of the only non-Commercial zones allowinging large, multi-unit buildings in the middle of single family neighborhoods, but this proposal goes much further by installing the much greater Commercial zone heights & densities into the MUR.
Please Attend the September 22 Planning Commission Public Hearing- This time It's For Keeps: WEBAIC has been criticized for describing many of the West Berkeley Project meetings as "critical". Rightly or wrongly, this word was used because we've always been aware this process was never just about one or two final hearings- it was always about an ongoing community effort to bring common sense, facts, and experience-grounded passion to a decision-making process that would affect the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people and enterprises for many years. Though the upcoming meetings are truly "critically" important, if at any step in the process you wouldn't have shown up and we would have collectively faltered, we would not now be in a position of entering these final hearings with the possibility of a positive result for our communities.
As can be seen, much is at stake for West Berkeley's future on the 22nd. WEBAIC, in coalition with MUR & R Zone neighbors, has accomplished a lot so far within the West Berkeley Project to maintain the finely balanced workability and livabilityofoursharedWestBerkeleyhome,butthesefinalHearingswilltellthetale. Ifyou'veshownupbefore,pleasedoit again, as anything can happen at these meetings. If you haven't shown up because you've been waiting for when it would really "count", this is it. After the 22nd the decision goes to the Council Public Hearing, but their decision will be greatly affected by the turnout & what's decided on the 22nd. Thanks so much all your efforts thus far - let's take it home together.
3

Archives continue here

Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:15:16 -0700

WEBAIC.net