Workshop on Development and the Environment Spring 2008

What Makes a Good Downtown

2008-04-29T17:47:00.000-07:00

Chronicle Guest Speaker:
John King, Writer on Architecture & Urban Design

What makes a good downtown for a city of Berkeley's size?

A true civic purpose, a reason for being
A mix of different things to do when you are there

retail—essentials and frills
quick places to grab coffee and fine dining

An enticing landscape

Open spaces
Buildings of different eras, scales

Different functions for spaces

Shops
Housing
Social activity

Genuine crossroads

Tightly knit with the community

Sense that something is going on, unexpected & fresh

'Un-quantified' measurement of downtown

Density Bonus Proposal

2008-04-16T12:06:00.000-07:00

On Monday night the Berkeley City Council rejected a proposal to have a city density bonus law in place in case Proposition 98 passes in the June 3^rd election.

Critics of Proposition 98 claim that it would limit eminent domain actions and would end rent control in the state, thereby ending most attempts to regulate development in California. The state law density bonus allows developers to expand their projects by 35% over local limited in exchange for providing affordable housing. The ZAB formed a sub-committee to draft a proposed measure that would give them more control over projects.

Last Tuesday the council voted 5-4 to send the council a recommendation that it pass the proposal so that the state would have a measure in place in case Prop 98 passes. At the meeting Monday night, Major Bates said that no ordinance was needed because it is unlikely that Prop 98 will pass. The ordinance wasn’t given a place on the agenda for the upcoming April 22 council meeting. If Prop 98 does pass, the policies criticized the ZAB would remain in place until the full consequences of the proposition become clear.

Richard Brenneman,, Council Rejects Interim Density Bonus Proposal, The Berkeley Daily Planet, April 15, 2004, available at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-04-15/article/29739.

Survey Boosts Funding for Berkeley Homeless

2008-04-15T17:30:00.000-07:00

Forty percent of Alameda County’s chronically homeless spend their nights in Berkeley, according to detailed findings released Thursday from a county-wide homeless report.
The $241,000 survey, conducted last year by the Alameda County-Wide Continuum of Care Council, found what casual observers and trained professionals in Berkeley have recognized anecdotally for years. Compared to their brethren across the rest of the county, Berkeley’s homeless are more likely to be adults, unmarried, male, substance abusers and mentally and physically disabled. They are also more likely to be chronically homeless— a category the federal government defines as someone who has been without shelter for the past 12 months.
Survey results will be used to drive the county’s 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness, said Megan Schatz, the care council’s survey coordinator. Completion and approval of the plan is a prerequisite for receiving funding from the Bush administration, which has refocused its priorities over the next decade from providing services to homeless to finding permanent shelter for the chronically homeless.
In Berkeley, 47 percent of the service users are African American and 42.3 percent are white. However, the chronically homeless included more whites and fewer blacks. Seventy-seven percent of homeless service users in Berkeley and 55 percent of housed service users are disabled, compared to 56 percent and 42 percent countywide. Among the more common chronic conditions, 15 percent have been told they have asthma, 8 percent have been told they are diabetic and 11 percent have been told they have tuberculosis. Housed users of services in Berkeley were more likely to report learning disabilities (48 percent to 3.5 percent) and mental illness (44 percent to 38 percent). Homeless users were more likely to report disabilities due to alcohol abuse (14.5 percent to 3 percent) and drug abuse (9.2 percent to 3.5 percent). Among chronically homeless using services in Berkeley, 54 percent claimed to be alcoholics, 48 percent claimed to be drug addicts, and 40 percent claimed a mental illness. In Berkeley, 34 percent of the housed, 60 percent of the homeless, and 65 percent of the chronically homeless service users reported receiving mental health services in the last year. Homeless and chronically homeless service users were nearly twice as likely to receive mental health services as housed service users.
The city has already reoriented its resources towards helping the chronically homeless and combining social services with housing assistance. Despite the city’s budget shortfall, Berkeley government officials have pledged to maintain the level of funding to community agencies that serve the homeless. Of that money, City Manager Phil Kamlarz has shifted $168,000 from other homeless programs to fund an initiative that provides homes and intensive services for the chronically homeless. Berkeley would seemingly stand to gain from the Bush Administration’s pledge to end chronic homelessness, but Micallef said that so far, the federal priority hasn’t translated into a lot of money for cities. Still, she said, Berkeley’s disproportionately large percentage of chronically homeless could serve it well when it seeks federal grants.

Matthew Artz, Survey Boosts Funding for Berkeley Homeless, Berkeley Daily Planet (May 14, 2004), available at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2004-05-14/article/18854.

More on Richard Moe and Historic Preservation

2008-04-13T21:00:00.000-07:00

A variety of class speakers have introduced the issue of historical preservation in the discussion of downtown development. This article titled “Sustainable Stewardship: Berkeley California” is actually the text of a speech given by Richard Moe, the seventh and current president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation non-profit organization. The speech highlights some main arguments, as well as emerging arguments, from the historic preservation constituency.

Moe states that historic preservation is “simply having the good sense to hold on to things that are well designed, that link us without past in a meaningful way, and that have plenty of good use left in them.” Although this is the core philosophy of historic preservation, Moe notes that the movement has evolved over the course of the last 150 years. Initially, the movement stressed paving and restricting iconic buildings to serve as the country’s patriotic shrines. Around the mid-twentieth century, the movement stressed economic benefit and adaptive reuse. Afterwards, the movement ties together the role of preservation in supporting societal values. Today, Moe argues that historic preservation not only continues to sustain societal values, but also addresses the climate change crisis.

“The challenge is to help people understand that preservation, but its very nature, is sustainability.” The current climate change crisis is characterized by the degradation of the environment and the consumption of energy and natural resources. Moe argues that because the remedy to the climate change crises will necessarily involve the conservation of energy and natural resources, “historic preservation has always been the greenest of the building arts.” Buildings are vast repositories of “embodied energy”, having taken up energy to extract, transport, and assemble building materials. The demotion of such building, as well as any construction thereafter, uses up more energy. Addressing the counter argument that historic buildings are energy hogs, Moe points out that in fact, some older buildings are as energy efficient as new ones. Moreover, since any new building represents an impact to the environment, “the greenest building is one that already exists.”

Moe advocates for a federal policy that will direct growth in existing communities. While land-use planning has traditionally been a matter of state and local government, Moe believes that where the federal government has a huge impact on local development by selecting carefully how to allocate its federal budget. Such federal policy should “stop rewarding unsustainable development,” “enhance the violability and livability of the [existing] communities.” And “encourage reuse and energy upgrades in older buildings.”

Richard Moe, Sustainable Stewardship: Berkeley, California. March 29, 2008, available at: http://www.preservationnation.org/about-us/press-room/speeches/sustainability-berkeley.html

J. Cheung

Charles Hotel Proposal

2008-04-10T18:28:00.001-07:00

Follow this link, then download the DAPAC Proposal. The sketches of what the building would look like are near slides 12-18.

http://berkeleycharleshotel.com/design_concepts.html

Building preservation becoming green trend

2008-04-10T02:09:00.000-07:00

Scott Lindlaw, Building preservation becoming green trend, Assoc. Press, April 6, 2008, available at http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/04/06/weekly_features/at_home/top/50hg_080406_preservation.txt (last visited April 9, 2008).

According to this article from the Associated Press, Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, spoke recently at the First Church of Christ in Berkeley on preservation and sustainability.

Moe, as the article suggests, represents a contingent of preservationists whose basic message is that preservation of existing structures can be and often is more energy-efficient than new construction.

Describing the energy embodied in structures, Moe says: “It takes energy to manufacture, to extract building materials, more energy to transport them to a construction site, still more energy to assemble them into a building...All of that energy is embodied in the finished structure — and if the structure is demolished and landfilled, the energy locked up in it is totally wasted.” And so his argument goes that “buildings are vast repositories of energy.”

Scott Lindlaw, the article’s author, attempts to quantify that embodied energy in numerous ways throughout the article. Citing to the National trust for Historic Preservation, for example, Lindlaw offers that “the construction and operation of buildings sends up twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as the entire U.S. transportation sector.” And according to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (which advises the White House and Congress on historic preservation policy, notes Lindlaw), a “typical 50,000-square-foot commercial building ‘embodies’ the equivalent of 640,000 gallons of gasoline.” Moreover, that same 50,000-square-foot building built new would release as much carbon as 2.8 million miles worth of driving.

The article does not, however, advocate a program of strict preservation. Rather, Lindlaw acknowledges the trend for urban infill and cites to Paul Mackie of Seattle’s Western Red Cedar Lumber Association for the hybrid position that “both renovation and new construction” are needed. And Mackie continues: “Using sustaintable building materials like wood – especially western red cedar—that have the best environmental values are great choices.”

Still, Moe is cited for the final perspective that our practice of “out with the old, in with the new” is merely something engrained in the American mindset and culture. “…[B]ut it is changing, thank goodness,” says Moe. “[W]e’re changing that.”

Berkeley's new cause: Make homeless behave

2008-04-09T14:33:00.000-07:00

After months of hand-wringing, the Berkeley City Council in November passed a law to hire monitors to patrol city streets and parks and report inappropriate behavior by the homeless and others to police and social service agencies.
The plan makes it easier for police to enforce a law against camping in public places. It bans lying down on commercial streets during the day and bars smoking on sidewalks on main commercial corridors.
It was Berkeley's reputation for tolerance and generous social services that helped attract so many homeless. One study estimated that 40% of Alameda County's chronically homeless reside in Berkeley even though the city represents only 7% of the county's population.
In recent years the city's openness to the unorthodox has given way to discomfort over aggressive panhandling and public urination and defecation.
Frustrated by homeless encampments, Berkeley residents and merchants recently helped reject a plan to build a public plaza near what is known as the Gourmet Ghetto in North Berkeley, home of Alice Waters' Chez Panisse restaurant. Residents and merchants feared that the homeless would just take over.
Mayor Bates said Berkeley residents are no different than residents of other cities with significant homeless populations and they do not want to see poverty. But, he said, the city was not shunning the disadvantaged.
Maura Dolan, Berkeley's new cause: Make homeless behave, Los Angeles Times (Nov. 29, 2007) available at, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homeless29nov29,0,1339539.story.

Richard Moe on Preservation and Sustainability

2008-04-09T08:54:00.000-07:00

Our speaker last night mentioned Richard Moe's talk on preservation and sustainability. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on it. Moe made some interesting points about older buildings and energy efficiency:

"Buildings designed before the widespread use of electricity feature transoms, high ceilings, and large windows for natural light and ventilation, as well as shaded porches and other features to reduce solar gain....

"According to a formula produced for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, about 80 billion BTUs of energy are embodied in a typical 50,000-square-foot commercial building. If you tear the building down, all that embodied energy is wasted.

"What's more, demolishing that same 50,000-square-foot commercial building would create nearly 4,000 tons of waste....

"Once the old building is gone, putting up a new one in its place takes more energy, of course, and it also uses more natural resources and releases new pollutants and greenhouse gases into our environment. ... It is estimated that constructing a new 50,000-square-foot commercial building releases about the same amount of carbon into the atmosphere as driving a car 2.8 million miles. ..."

Jon Carroll, “Searching for Bernard,” SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, April 8, 2008, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/08/DDUE1008UQ.DTL

B-Town’s Silent Majority

2008-04-06T22:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/to_move_and_protect/Content?oid=444009

According to an Internet survey on KitchenDemocract.org, nearly 87 percent of Berkeley registered voters said the city should implement Mayor Tom Bates’ “Public Commons for Everyone Initiative.” However, this majority is considered a silent majority and rarely voices their opinions at council meetings. Instead, the public reaction to the Public Commons for Everyone Initiative has been negative with homeless activists declaring that the initiatives pick on the poor and criminalize the homeless.

The Public Commons for Everyone Initiative has several proposals for controlling the homeless problems in Berkeley. They include extending the hours of public restrooms and making sure there are enough signs directing people to them. Another is a law that would allow the police to ticket anyone who urinates or defecates in public instead of having to arrest them on misdemeanor charges. A third proposal is to ensure that police actively enforce existing antisocial laws, such as prohibitions against spending the night in parks or on city streets when there are shelter beds available.

Another initiative that may be most significant in affecting homeless behavior is the mayor’s plan to ban smoking in commercial districts. Studies have shown that homeless people are more likely to smoke. Therefore, this initiative may result in forcing many of the homeless off Telegraph and Shattuck Avenues. Interesting, this initiative met with the least resistance from homeless rights activists.

When the homeless lose or abandon stuff, it gets frozen

2008-04-03T16:51:00.000-07:00

Here’s an interesting article about abandoned possessions left by the homeless.

Berkeley not only tolerates its homeless people, it also takes good care of their stuff when they abandon it in shopping carts. The city of Berkeley stores abandoned shopping carts left by the homeless in a huge container for up the 90 days. The items in the container are refrigerated at a temperature of 0 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit.

In 2003, Berkeley bought the 40-foot-long, 8-foot-wide refrigerated container for $8,200 because public works officials complained that the shopping carts, which were then stored at the city's outdoor corporation yard, were vermin-infested. The city needed a place to put the container, so it signed a five-year, $61,500 lease with Caltrans for land under the University Avenue overpass at Interstate 80.

Why does the city store the abandoned shopping carts? Deputy City Attorney Matthew Orebic asserted that the city is abiding state law, which requires storage of lost goods. He concedes, however, that it is unclear whether the law applies to unattended shopping carts because they may not be lost. Given the lack of clarity, the city opted to do what was safe and fair, that is, to make sure that it are not violating any laws and to be fair to homeless persons.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/16/BAGKF9S21N1.DTL

Solutions to homeless problem hard to find

2008-04-02T14:44:00.001-07:00

Every winter, Key West sees a large increase in its homeless population and the call for action takes on a more desperate tone. The city often claims it is unfairly burdened by vagrants who panhandle on the streets and sleep on the beaches. The same sunny weather that drives the crucial winter tourism rush also attracts an inordinate number of homeless from the snow-blown streets of northern cities.
The city made major efforts in the last year to push the homeless from public areas, including the city's last stretches of wetlands, but has run up against a wall. A no-panhandling law went into effect for the Duval Street strip and Mallory Square, severing a main source of sustenance for homeless and leading to a number of arrests. Though the panhandling ban may be considered a success, a new law banning homeless from camping in wetlands has gathered dust for months. The city cannot enforce the ban, which would effectively eliminate the last safe area for the homeless, without risking a major lawsuit. Miami and Orlando have both been sued for barring the homeless from life-sustaining activities such as sleeping in public. The courts ruled in favor of plaintiffs who argued that the cities must provide an alternative for homeless that are roused from sleep.
So the city has been struggling to create a "Safe Zone" where the homeless could go and not be bothered by authorities. Such camps are not popular with the public and few are willing to allow one in their neighborhood.
The road ahead will likely be long and difficult, as it has been for years.

Travis James Tritten, Solutions to homeless problem hard to find, KeyNews.com, http://www.livableoldtown.com/solution_to_homeless.htm.

Letters to the Editor, Daily Planet

2008-04-02T14:44:00.000-07:00

Here are some excerpts from The Berkeley Daily Planet’s Letters to the Editor that provide various perspectives on the development of downtown. It illustrates some unique angles and viewpoints that developers most likely face when handling projects in Berkeley:

“It is indeed alarming to witness the dominoes falling in Berkeley as elected representatives and city officials bow down to real estate developers, telecommunications giants, and university/corporate collusion called scientific experimentation and “green” progress . . . Will Berkeley become just another bedroom community for commuters, while long-time residents, taxpayers and voters are driven out of our community? And where will we go? . . .Berkeley’s citizens, leaders, and city officials concerned with housing and public health need to ally with counterparts in neighboring cities and San Francisco in a united fight for the rights of all people for decent housing and public health.” Marianne Robinson

“It seems that every edition of the Planet brings forth another letter from another technophobe decrying the cell phone towers proposed for the UC Storage building . . .I understand that conservatives fear change; different religions, different types of people, new buildings, and new technologies are all pretty scary until you get to know them better.” Fred Massell

“Another thousand times no, no and no on the proposed building of a new sports facility on the western edge of the Memorial Stadium . . . We have lived on the north south axisroad across the eastern edge of the campus less than a mile from the stadium for many years. We walk to football games and arts events on campus. Since the Haas Business School was built, where do all those people park? . . . congestion continue to obliterate the most beautiful and last natural edge of my Campus . . .Put our talented athletes nearer our degraded and neglected downtown! Put the athletic support staffs for all of Cal’s illustrious, popular sports teams, the vehicles and fans’ access where there is more parking than exists at the eastern edge of campus.” Judith Holland

“Letters to the Editor,” The Berkeley Daily Planet, January 11, 2008, available at: http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-01-11/article/28904.

J. Cheung

The Berkeley City Council Wakes Up and the Daily Planet Hates It

2008-04-02T09:55:00.000-07:00

An interesting article appeared in the Berkeley Daily Planet on Friday, March 28th (yes, I admit it, I have the Daily Planet bookmarked and I read the online version every day. It’s good for a laugh, if nothing else!), concerning a study of regarding matters that could have great impact on the downtown area.

The article, “Council Approves Controversial $40K Height-Profit Study,” begins with an odd recounting of what appears to be an even stranger occurrence, the performance of a song lauding Berkeley’s efforts to reduce its waste stream. From this unconventional jumping off point, however, the article gets down to the heart of the matter. Well, actually, that’s not true. It next describes a tax initiative to fund a new warm-water aquatic facility for seniors, and then documents the adoption of a “non-controversial” measure regarding condo conversions in the city, a measure that will “streamline the conversion process,” whatever that means in this bureaucratic nightmare of a city.

Finally, after covering these other matters, the article takes up the issue that the headline announces: the Height-Profit study. By a 6-1 vote, the Council approved spending $40,000 “for a study of the relationship between building height and developer profits.” After DAPAC rejected a staff proposal to undertake such a study, which will determine the economic viability of DAPAC’s proposed density adjustments to the downtown area, the Planning Commission took the issue directly to the City Council, which authorized the study. The lone ‘nay’ vote, Councilmember Dona Spring, would seem to have already undertaken her own economic analysis, claiming that this study is merely an end-run by developers seeking to build “point towers” around the normal funding process, and predicting that “they’ll say it’s unprofitable unless they go to 18 stories.”

While the Daily Planet’s coverage of the issues surround DAPAC can hardly be said to have shown themselves worthy of the vaulted Fox News tag-line, “fair and balanced,” this article seems particular offensive. After proclaiming how “controversial” the study is, the Planet decides to cover a few other matters before the city council before delving into the subject at hand, and then deigns to cover only the opinion of the sole opposing vote to the measure, hinting at a pro-developer slant to the Council’s decision in the process with the term “developer profits.” Fair coverage would have included a statement from a supporting Councilmember, and framed the greater issues surrounding the proposed density adjustment by considering the possible beneficiaries of high-rise towers in the area beyond the developers themselves.

The benefits of the newly approved study are self-evident: it will give the Council objective economic information regarding the realistic viability of the DAPAC proposal, which the Council can then use to modify the proposal as it sees fit. If the study finds DAPAC’s proposal economically viable for developers it could ease the plan’s adoption by allowing an up-or-down vote on the plan as it stands. If the study finds the plan uneconomical, however, the Council will at least have information on what height levels will be required for developers to turn a profit on new projects in the downtown area, allowing the subsequent debate to, at a minimum, be predicated on realistic assumptions. Considering Mayor Bates’ assurances that Berkeley has plenty of money in its budget, spending $40,000 on this study seems reasonable when its benefits are considered, especially given the enormous impact that the DAPAC plan stands to have. The Daily Planet’s brief, obscure, and one-sided coverage, however, leaves the reader with a sense of distrust for the Council and for the plan in general, and thereby does the city a great disservice.

Judith Scherr, Council Approves Controversial $40K Downtown Height-Profit Study, THE BERKELEY DAILY PLANET, Mar. 28, 2008, available at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-28/article/29579.

Seniors moving into the city

2008-04-02T08:24:00.001-07:00

Hey all,

There is a good article in today's SF Chron discussing the increasing numbers of seniors who are moving back to the city after their kids have left home.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/02/HO04VNAM8.DTL

Josh

Parking Crunch

2008-03-31T08:21:00.000-07:00

I found an article entitled “The Parking Crunch Myth” which examined whether changes in organization of office space lead to a parking crunch as many people believe. As office put more employees in smaller spaces to save costs, many are worried that parking will become an increasing problem.

The article states that it is important for employers to accurately assess the demand for parking. This assessment involves a consideration of the correct occupied floor of the building, the percentage of employees who drive cars, and the density of employees within the building. The trend in recent years has been toward more demand for parking, often above what the buildings can handle. However, recent studies comparing current parking demand ratios to those in the 1980s reveal that parking demand hasn’t increased as dramatically as many people believe. The evidence of dramatic increases in parking demand involve isolated areas.

However, employers should be aware that parking planning is still important. Parking demands may be shifting in coming years as more people telecommute. Some new considerations include incentives to carpool, discouraging reserved parking, re-striping spaces to accommodate smaller cars, leasing spaces from nearby properties that have little weekday traffic, and adding parking decks to lots.

John Dorsett, The Parking Crunch Myth, Today’s Facility Manager, May 1998, available at http://www.walkerparking.com/documents/dorsett_crunch_myth.pdf

Parking Paper Outline

2008-03-30T20:25:00.000-07:00

Parking Paper Outline:

Why this is an issue

Current state

i. Garages

ii. Map

iii. Meters

iv. Employer permits

Proposed developments

i. Charles Hotel

ii. Asian Art Museum

Increased car use
Consumer impacts

Considerations in adopting a solution

Wide variety of solutions
Factors that affect parking demand
Policy/pricing factors
Spillover problems
Incidental costs
Transportation and land use objectives
Who bears the costs?
Measure demand Costs
Considerations specific to downtowns
Methods:

i. Copy other cities

ii. Consult data

Possible solutions

Parking Pricing

i. Techniques

ii. Objectives

iii. Getting the right price

iv. Benefits/Costs

1. Efficiency

2. Reduced car use

3. Efficient land use

4. Revenues

5. Transaction costs

6. Financial costs

7. spillover

8. Reduces cruising

v. New technology meters

1. Pay and display

2. Pay by space

3. in vehicle meters

4. mobile phone

vi. Examples:

1. Aspen

Min/max
Increase capacity

i. Increase curb parking

ii. Decrease size

Employer
Subsidize
Remote

i. Example: Chattanooga

Re-design
Car stackers
Information
Residential
Eliminate reserved parking
Reduce demand

i. In lieu

ii. Shared

Freezes
Reduce demand

i. Ex: Portland

Enforcement

Examples

Pasadena
SF
Redwood City

NYTimes Travel on Berkeley

2008-03-29T05:44:00.001-07:00

http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/travel/30hours.html?ex=1207454400&en=89b1f25cc3467412&ei=5070

Green Building Paper Outline

2008-03-21T11:51:00.000-07:00

Better for The Environment: New Green Buildings or Retrofitting Old Buildings?

I. The Goal: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. California’s AB 32, City of Berkeley and UC Berkeley initiatives
b. LEED certification program: requirements and goals

II. Constructing New Green Buildings
a. Environmental Costs of construction: energy and materials
b. Environmental Savings: energy efficiency, offsets, other measures
c. Net Benefit or impact

III. Retrofit Existing Buildings to Achieve More Energy Efficiency
a. Environmental cost of leaving buildings as they are
b. Environmental costs of retrofitting existing buildings
c. Environmental Savings: energy efficiency, offsets, other measures
d. Net Benefit or impact

IV. Comparing New Green Buildings and Retrofitted Buildings

V. Implications for Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan
a. Common ground for environmentalists and preservationists?
b. Recommendation for DAPAC

Homelessness / PCEI Paper -- Outline

2008-03-20T16:48:00.000-07:00

Proposed Structure for Homelessness Paper:

How do homelessness/crime issues relate to DAPAC? [Robert]

How The Presence of The Homeless Inhibits Economic Growth
How Crime Inhibits Economic Growth

The Situation in Berkeley [Linda; Farhad; Efren; Jenny]

Current rates / facts

i. How present are the homeless in Berkeley?

ii. What are current crime rates downtown?

iii. Is there a relationship between the presence of the homeless downtown and downtown crime rates?

Berkeley’s Past (Unconstitutional) Measures to Address Homelessness

i. Measures N and O (1998)

ii. Judicial decision declaring the measures unconstitutional violation of First Amendment

Berkeley’s Attempts to Address Homelessness Downtown

i. The Public Commons for Everyone Initiative (PCEI)

ii. Other Relevant Legislation or Policies / Other Social

1. Housing the homelessness

iii. Financial impact of Berkeley’s programs

How Other Cities Have Tried to Address Homelessness

i. Case examples of what works and does not work

ii. Comparison to Berkeley

Public Commons for Everyone Initiative [Jesse; Matt; Beverly; David]

Why The PCEI Will Fail to Address Homelessness in Berkeley

i. Eighth Amendment Cruel & Unusual Analysis [Beverly]

ii. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process / Void for Vagueness Analysis [David]

iii. The merits of criminalization on homelessness [Matt]

iv. Straight Policy Discretion Analysis [Jesse]

Proposed Solutions

i. A Redrafted PCEI Ordinance [Jesse, Matt, David, Beverly]

TDR Paper: Outline (Draft 1)

2008-03-20T14:41:00.000-07:00

I. Introduction to TDR
a. Definitions and TDR Basics (Allison)
b. Why TDRs could help downtown Berkeley: addressing gaps in DAP (Allison)
i. Density
1. DAPAC height limits and cost-effective building
2. Environmental goals
a. Berkeley Greenhouse Gas plan
ii. Historic Preservation
1. Parcel assembly
2. Balancing new development with effective preservation of historic buildings
c. Legal Issues with TDRs (Natalie)
d. TDRs in Berkeley: existing plan (Josh)

II. TDRs and Density
a. Benefits of dense development (Hana)
i. Environmental
ii. Economic
iii. Safety
b. Case Studies of TDRs to achieve dense development (Hana)

III. TDRs and Historic Preservation
a. Historic Preservation in Berkeley
i. CEQA (Meg)
ii. Ramifications of listing (Meg)
b. Case Studies of Historic Preservation TDRs (Natalie)

IV. Implementation Recommendations (Sara and Michael) – Does it make sense to include sub-sections specific to recommendations for achieving density and for achieving preservation?
a. TDR Bank
b. Sending/Receiving Areas
c. Densities (?)
d. Is anything missing?

Paper Outline - Eminent Domain

2008-03-20T10:39:00.000-07:00

MATT SIEVING
PAPER PROPOSAL: EMINENT DOMAIN & BERKELEY’S DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN

Broad Questions to Answer
1) When is eminent domain legal?
2) When is eminent domain advisable? When is it unadvisable?
3) How does DAPAC square with the answers to #2?
4) Are there Berkeley-specific issues that make this a particularly good/bad idea?

Outline

Eminent Domain: Basic Intro

General Intro: Definition & Mechanics
Legal Precedents

Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954): Landmark case upholding private to private transfers as part of urban renewal schemes.
Hawaii v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984)
Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005): Recent endorsement of private→private transfers.

Responses to Kelo

Legislative Responses

Sensenbrenner Bill: in response to Kelo, would deny federal funds to cities that use eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another.

http://www.counterpunch.org/adler07292006.html

Academic Responses

“Eminent Domain for Urban Redevelopment - An essential tool for development? Or an unnecessary intervention in the market.”

http://ideas.repec.org/a/uct/ctecon/05-win-1.html

Public Responses: Newspaper articles, etc.

Practical Guide to Eminent Domain

New HUD guidelines – Jan 4 2008

http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/centers/sac/eminent/

Case Studies: Cities that have employed eminent domain

New London (Kelo)

Berkeley Profile w.r.t. Eminent Domain issues

Past experiences

Ashby BART – specific resolution not to use ED

Demographic / Infrastructural / Geographical / Geological characteristics
Issues w/ Historic Preservation & Eminent Domain?

Recommendation: What role should Eminent Domain play in downtown redevelopment?

Mortgage crisis is creating new 'slumburbs'

2008-03-19T17:00:00.000-07:00

Carol Lloyd, Mortgage crisis is creating new ‘slumburbs,’ March 16, 2008, S.F. Chron., at C-1.

This past Sunday, an article appeared in The San Francisco Chronicle discussing the effect of the mortgage crisis on suburban developments and how it could lead to an increase in the building of walkable urban developments.

According to the article (citing Richard Florida’s new book, “Who’s Your City”), “super cities” like San Francisco are attracting a disproportionate number of educated, creative workers. These people keep the housing prices relatively high within the urban core despite the state of the US economy at large. Outside that core, however, suburbs are experiencing “unprecedented decline”:

“Stockton, with nearly 5 percent of all its households at some stage of foreclosure, got the honor of ringing up the second-highest foreclosure rate nationwide, after Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.”

Carol Lloyd, the article's author, goes on to identify other areas that ranked high on that foreclosure list:

“Other sprawling California regions dominated the list: Modesto at No.3, Merced at No.4, Riverside-San Bernardino at No.5, Bakersfield at No.7, Vallejo-Fairfield at No.8 and Sacramento at No.9.”

These foreclosures draw attention to the importance of urban living, according to Christopher Leinberger of the Brookings Institute in Washington. Leinberger contends that edge suburbs are already turning into slums, and that neighborhoods populated with isolated, car-dependent single-families are not sustainable because:

(1) New suburbs tend to be far from public transport, social services and commerce;

(2) As compared to redeveloping older, sturdy urban buildings, it is difficult to create multifamily housing out of existing production-built suburban housing; and

(3) The suburbs, which depend on developers’ fees and property taxes for community needs, are financially vulnerable.

The article points out parenthetically that Leinberger’s suburbs do not include “older inner suburbs like Berkeley or Palo Alto that have walkable urban neighborhoods and public transit.”

Lloyd finishes on a positive note, citing to John Norquist, president of the Congress for the New Urbanism, for the opinion that walkable neighborhoods are being built well and that they are a desirable thing. And she cites again to Leinberger, who believes that building walkable urban developments offers no guarantee of a city’s success but is an essential first step.

The experts, Lloyd says, believe this could be an evolution of the American dream toward a “far healthier, more ecological vision.”

Paper Topic

2008-03-19T14:32:00.000-07:00

I will be writing for the paper about homelessness. Specifically, I am going to discuss the constitutionality of the ordinance. There are 2 questions I am addressing. 1. is this ordinance void for vagueness under these cases? and 2. is the failure to designate a civil or criminal regime a violation of due process?

Downtown Planners Confront Homeless, Housing Need

2008-03-19T14:30:00.001-07:00

In 2006, the city turned its attention to the poor and the homeless who frequent, sleep and panhandle along downtown streets.
There are multiple ways the city hoped to address the problem. One goal of the DAPAC plan should be a call for increased cooperation between the university and city on housing issues involving the poor and homeless. In addition, the new plan should include setting a priority on the need for housing and social services in the downtown; calling for a costly seismic retrofit and improvements at the Veterans’ Memorial Building at 1931 Center St., where many services for the homeless are now located; and adding more incentives for developers to create housing for the homeless and extremely low-income tenants, possibly through expediting the city approval process for projects that include the units.
The reality of street life in Berkeley is more complex than simple stereotypes would suggest, committee members learned. For one thing, many of the downtown panhandlers who seek the change of passers-by along Shattuck Avenue and other downtown streets aren’t homeless.
In addition, Berkeley’s homeless population is unique, in part because the city has 40 percent of Alameda County’s chronically homeless, largely single males, Micallef said. One reason may be the perception that Berkeley is friendlier to the down-trodden.
Another attraction is that Berkeley has its own mental health program, and people who are mentally ill feel more comfortable here than anywhere else. But the city also spends a disproportionate amount of funds on emergency services for the homeless, and those costs would probably drop if more housing could be found.
What the homeless really need, however, is housing. But, for one thing, Berkeley doesn’t have many of the vacant buildings that can be transformed into a single room occupancy (SRO) residence, with shared kitchen and bath facilities, or other types of housing. And another reality is the long time lag between approving new housing and its eventual opening.
Another problem is money—not only funds to build new units but the cash to help their tenants make the transition from street life. Housing alone isn’t a solution without social services to support the needs of a population with chemical dependency, mental health and other issues

Richard Brenneman, Downtown Planners Confront Homeless, Housing Need, Berkeley Daily Planet (Oct. 20, 2006), available at, http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2006-10-20/article/25350.

Paper Topic

2008-03-19T11:22:00.001-07:00

I'm writing for the Infrastructure paper and I will be focusing on the parking problem in downtown and possible solutions. I think the Infrastructure group is going to use green building as an element to tie our three parts together.

Dacey v. City of Berkeley

2008-03-18T18:58:00.001-07:00

If anyone is interested in the writ of mandate that today's guest speakers were talking about regarding the lawsuit against Patrick Kennedy here is the link:

http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/fortecgi/fortecgi.exe?ServiceName=DomainWebService&TemplateName=index.html

Click on "Case Summary"
Enter the case number as RG07314238

Coalition Support for Increased Density Housing

2008-03-17T23:11:00.000-07:00

Emmet Pierce, Coalition stands up for density; Housing Action Network seeks to build public support, The San Diego Union-Tribune, March 2, 2003.

My contribution to the TDR memo will focus on the environmental, economic and safety benefits of high density development. This relates to the topic of TDRs in that increased density (via increased height) is our primary justification for the historic preservation TDR plan we are proposing.

As one of my continuous areas of interest has long been economic development, I began my research there. I came across this article in my research and found it interesting particularly because it focuses on San Diego, another California City, and one that has also undergone a TDR program.

The article highlights the activism of an organization that advocates along the principle “that a poorly housed work force will lead to a weakened economy” and applied this principle to the development of high-density residential development in San Diego.

I would also be interested to hear any other views on this issue – so please comment!

Price Tag of Parking

2008-03-17T12:27:00.000-07:00

I found an article entitled “Price Tag of Parking.” The author argues that there is really no such thing as free parking. Even parking that is provided at no cost often carries a high price for parking providers. The costs associated with no cost parking include investments in land, construction costs, property and sales taxes, and maintenance and operating costs. These parking costs are usually passed on to the operator of the facility. For example, a mall owner will charge higher rent to cover the costs associated with parking. Higher rents usually translate into higher prices for customers.

The article suggests that owners should carefully consider whether more parking is needed before building new parking since this will involve additional costs. Construction costs for one parking space can be anywhere from $6,000 to $15,000. In assessing parking demand, owners should ask three questions: How long will patrons park? How many times will each space turn over? When will demand exist?

Even if more parking is needed, building a new structure isn’t necessarily the best approach. Owners should consider other options such as operating a shuttle service from remote parking, employing policies to discourage people from driving, building a surface lot on an existing vacant lot, re-striping existing facilities to increase supply, or implementing parking management strategies that allow existing parking facilities to be used more efficiently.

John Dorsett, Price Tag of Parking, Today’s Facility Manager, February 1998, available at http://www.walkerparking.com/documents/dorsett_price_tag.pdf

Upcoming Ballot Initiatives on Eminent Domain and Rent Control

2008-03-16T14:24:00.000-07:00

Propositions 98 and 99 – Eminent Domain and Rent Control

On June 3rd, California voters will be given the choice to vote for Propositions 98 and 99, dealing with eminent domain and rent control. The current landscape surrounding these issues is as follows:

With regards to rent control, Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose all currently have some measure of rent control, limiting the amount a landlord can increase the rent charged for a unit during a tenant’s residence. Landlords are free to set the rent at any level when tenants change, however.

Respecting eminent domain, Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) held, in a 5-4 decision, that eminent domain, the right of the government to seize private property for public purposes, allowed cities to seize private property and transfer it to other private owners to further economic development. The Court held that seizure and transfer of property from one private party to another qualified as a “public use” if the new use creates new jobs, increases tax revenues and help to revitalize a depressed urban area. Kelo has generated substantial public backlash and considerable uncertainty. Propositions 98 and 99 are, to great extent, the result of this backlash.

The basics of the propositions are:
Prop. 98 limits the government’s ability to employ eminent domain to seize private property for public uses and eliminates rent control throughout California.

Eminent Domain Effects:

Private property may not be taken for other private use under any circumstances (i.e. Kelo-type seizures would be prohibited).
Property may only be taken for public uses like freeway construction, parks, or schools.
Open spaces and farms may not be seized for the sale of natural resources.
If the government’s purpose change after the seizure, the property must be offered for repurchase to the original owner at the seizure price.

Rent Control Effects

Tenants living in rent-controlled areas continue to receive the benefit of rent control until they move.
Once a unit turns over to a new tenant, that unit is no longer subject to rent control.

Prop. 99: In response to a perceived “hidden agenda” behind Prop. 98, evidenced by the substantial financial backing of apartment and mobile home owners, the California League of Cities proposed Prop. 99. The League of Cities claims that the real motivation behind Prop. 98 is the elimination of rent control in order to profit landlords. Prop. 99 also deals with eminent domain, but has no provisions regarding rent control. Under Prop. 99, the government would be prohibited from taking owner-occupied homes for sale to another private party. Prop. 99 is drafted such that if both propositions are passed, the proposition receiving more votes will become law.

Sources
• www.yesprop98.com/facts
• www.eminentdomainreform.com/compare9899
• Tom Chorneau, Eminent Domain Measure on Ballot, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, MAR. 10, 2008.

Tensions between Berkeley High School students and Downtown area merchants

2008-03-13T12:05:00.000-07:00

Because Berkeley High School does not have a cafeteria, about 90 percent of students rely on Downtown merchants for lunch, according to a Berkeley High School junior.

When students leave campus for their 50-minute lunch break, some of them steal from food stores, according to local merchants. Nevertheless, the same local merchants admit that much of their income comes from Berkeley High School students.

In response, some students complain that the merchants are “rude” and discriminatory. For instance, one student alleged that the merchants stereotype black teenagers as “gangbangers.” In general, the distrust of high school students leads some merchants to kick out students who are in large groups. Kicking out students in large groups affects black students in particular, because, as one student put it, black students tend to travel “in packs.”

http://www.dailycal.org/article/1708/berkeley_high_students_local_retailers_clash

Landmark Berkeley Ice Rink to Reopen

2008-03-13T00:36:00.000-07:00

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/news/print.asp?id=24535
The Berkeley Ice Rink was scheduled to be shut down about a year ago. The property was going to be used as development property, however a nonprofit group stepped in to raise about $12 million within the next two years to save the landmark.

The ice rink has had several skaters such as Kristi Yamaguchi, Peggy Fleming and Brian Boitano start their career there. It was open for 70 years before being shutting down sometime a year ago.

This is another example of the landmarking and attempting to save older buildings which could be used for more productive development. Society thriving on decay anyone?

Building Reuse is Green, Says Leading Architect

2008-03-12T23:56:00.000-07:00

Richard Brenneman, “Building Reuse is Green, Says Leading Architect,” The Berkeley Daily Planet, Mar. 11, 2008 (available at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-11/article/29433).

The Berkeley Daily Planet featured an article this week summarizing green development perspectives held by architect and green building expert Sandra Mendler.

Mendler, who spoke as a Green Building and Development panel member at the UC Berkeley Energy Symposium, explained that retrofits can generally match the efficiency standards of new construction. She further offered that retrofitting an existing building is generally greener than tearing it down and building a new one. Her conclusions echo findings made by DAPAC in their preparation of the Downtown Area Plan.

Other panelists at the symposium included Steve Selkowitz and Charles Huizenga of Lawrence Berkeley and Gail Brager of UC Berkeley’s Center for the Built Environment. Each shared Mendler’s perspective that the current levels of emissions stemming from building energy use identified buildings as major targets for conservation efforts.

Among the factors contributing to energy use, “90% of a building’s embodied energy derives from five material choices: framing (steel, concrete or wood), enclosure systems (glass, masonry or metal), flooring, roofing and partitions.” Mendler offered, for example, that aluminum requires tens times the energy to produce as steel.

The article concludes with a plug for buildcarbonneutral.org, where builders can go to calculate the green-ness of their projects.

Center Street Plaza

2008-03-12T23:18:00.000-07:00

The Berkeley Planning Commission Task Force evaluated the proposal to build a hotel/conference center/museum complex in the heart of Downtown Berkeley. The report found that the proposed 200-room hotel and conference center and relocation of the UC museums downtown could significantly boost the Downtown economy and add nearly $1 million per year to direct City revenues.

The Task Force found that Center Street between Oxford and Shattuck is ideally suited to become a public open space closed to cars. Center Street is the major pedestrian link between the campus and Downtown. More than 10,000 walking trips per day are made on this block, while there is relatively little automobile traffic. This block’s dimensions are: Length- 460'; curb-to-curb width- 42'; total right-of-way- 80'; width of sidewalk on the south side of the street- about 22'; and width of sidewalk on the north side- 16'. Making Center Street a pedestrian block will encourage more people to walk to and from campus, bus, and BART Downtown. Trees can be planted to provide landscaping and open space.

The proposed hotel and conference center would be strategically located at the most significant transit point in Berkeley. That said, it could still generate significant traffic by hotel guests, conference-goers, museum visitors, and employees. A project transportation plan can reduce traffic impacts. The report outlines a number of strategies to reduce car use: locating parking underground; raising parking rates for all-day use; and/or providing hotel guests with a day’s free transit by means of a BART excursion ticket, perhaps a policy contributing to LEED certification.

Other suggestions for the plaza:

● Use of the hotel/conference center should flow easily to and from the street and encourage spilling into Downtown.

● Include ground-level and second-story cafes, restaurants and retail developed in conjunction with the hotel, preferably with outdoor seating.

● Feature ecological amenities that relate to the civic, environmental, arts, and economic values supported by the Berkeley General Plan.

- Jayni Foley

Report of the Planning Commission Task Force on a Downtown Hotel/Conference Center/Museums Complex and Public Open Space (April 27, 2004), available at http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_(new_site_map_walk-through)/Level_3_-_General/DowntownAreaDocs.pdf

Another Permit for Patrick Kennedy

2008-03-11T19:10:00.000-07:00

The Berkeley Zoning Board Adjustment approved three projects in Berkeley last week: 1) add a restaurant downtown, 2) build a bio fuels station in south Berkeley, and 3) permit a child care center for Pixar employees in West Berkeley. With regard to the most relevant project to downtown Berkeley, the first project, developer Patrick Kennedy now has a blanket use permit to establish a 13, 974 square foot full service restaurant and bar (able to serve alcohol) at the former location of the Act 1&2 Theater on the 2100 block of Center Street. Kennedy sees potential for a Spanish or Latin restaurant with live entertainment. On behalf of Kennedy, Niloo Nouri expressed, “We wanted to have the full-service restaurant necessary to attract a good reputable high end name to Berkeley.” Board member Sarah Shumer opposed the permit and expressed concern over the nature of the blanket permit, as well as the availability of parking that would accompany the development of the restaurant. Vice chair Bob Allen, in favor of the permit, asked rhetorically, “If we are not going to allow this type of a development, what use can we allow downtown? . . . Do we want more of a ghost town than we have now?” From another perspective, Doug Hambleton, Berkeley police chief, expressed concern over the noise and supervision issues.

Riya Bhattacharjee, “ ZAB Approves Center Street Restaurant Permit, BioFuels Station,” The Berkeley Daily Planet, Volume 9 Issue 96, March 7-10 2008, at 3.

Becky O'Malley Editorial on Our Class

2008-03-11T15:52:00.000-07:00

Becky O'Malley posted an editorial reflecting on what she wanted to say to our class today.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-11/article/29443

Homeless Shelter

2008-03-11T14:49:00.001-07:00

I found an article in the Berkeley Daily Planet about one of the homeless shelters in Berkeley. It's a useful article to get a feel for what a shelter is like. St Mark’s Episcopal Church, with funding from the city, operates an emergency storm shelter. When the weather looks bad, the church posts signs through out the city letting people know that the shelter will open at 7pm and provide beds for the night.

Prior to 2002, the emergency shelter was provided by a number of churches on a rotating basis. In 2002, J.C. Orton, the operator of the shelter, was approached by the city. The city expressed interest in creating a permanent emergency shelter with funding from the city. Orton stated that the hardest part of creating the shelter was finding a venue. Orton contacted the churches that were involved in the rotational shelter program, and St Mark’s was the only one that expressed interest.

The doors at St Mark’s are open from 7-9pm for people to sign in. Each person is given a pad, a sheet, and a blanket for the night. The sheets are collected in the morning and are taking to the Laundromat. There are usually between 50 and 60 people, mostly between the ages of 26 and 55. There are usually 4 to 6 times as many men as women. The people using the shelter leave by 7am the next morning.

The article describes some personal stories from various people who have used the shelter. Most describe the difficulties they face in trying to find employment and a permanent place to live. One person expressed concern that the Public Commons for Everyone Initiative Berkeley will lead t more harassment of people who live on the streets.

Lydia Gans, St Mark’s Provides Shelter in Bad Weather, The Berkeley Daily Planet, January 29, 2008, available at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-01-29/article/29041.

University Ponders Prospects for People's Park

2008-03-10T22:14:00.000-07:00

People’s Park is about to reach its fortieth birthday and it needs to change. UC Berkeley has embarked on a comprehensive process to re-think how People's Park can better serve the campus and the broader community.
Despite the diversity of perspectives of the park's many stakeholders, most recognized the park's historical significance and had a strong interest in revitalizing the park to serve the community. Stakeholders also shared a common goal of having the park be a welcoming and safe open space.
Several intriguing possibilities were suggested as part of the park study, including using the park as a performance and fine arts public venue or as a learning space devoted to sustainability, health and wellness or global peace pursuits.
As a next step, the advisory board recommended that the university hold a design competition to solicit detailed plans for the park's redesign. The board has also recommended creating a new task force devoted to addressing issues of homelessness in and around People's Park.
Whether the park ultimately includes outdoor exhibits, a café, an amphitheater or meditation spots – or not – the goal is to create a park that can truly serve the community and campus.

University Ponders Prospects for People's Park, Cal Neighbors (Cal Neighbors, Berkeley, Cal.), Winter 2008, available at, http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2007-11-06/article/28293.

An Interesting Twist on Historic Preservation: “Twenty-first Century Pre-war Apartments”

2008-03-10T09:48:00.000-07:00

Jennifer Bleyer, ‘Pre-war’ Apartments Rising Just Down the Street, March 9, 2008, New York Times, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/nyregion/thecity/09prew.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22historic+preservation%22&st=nyt&oref=slogin (last visited March 10, 2008).

I found this article in the New York Times yesterday highly amusing. It is also something of a play on, and at the same time critique of, the concept of historic classifications and preservation.

The article looks at a new high-rise residential development that recently sprouted up on the Upper West Side of New York City which is advertising its condos as “Twenty-first Century Pre-war Residences”. The article discusses the marketing value of these types of classifications.

Of course, the pro-development, New York City attitude highlighted in this article is better juxtaposed than compared to Berkeley’s anti-development sentiment, but I found it an interesting perspective for comparison, particularly for those of us planning to write on TDRs and historical preservation in this context.

Berkeley Council passes plan to stop bad street behavior

2008-03-09T23:26:00.001-07:00

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/13/BAGQGQEGR11.DTL

Berkeley’s City Council voted unanimously 9-0 last summer to pass the Public Commons for Everyone Initiative, a sweeping plan that seeks to address aggressive and disruptive behavior on the Berkeley’s streets. The goal of the PCEI is to improve the city’s common areas for everyone who lives in, works in, and visits Berkeley. The initiative cracks down on a wide range of behavior on the Berkeley’s streets that is regarded to be inhospitable to residents, visitors, and merchants. For example, PCEI bans smoking near buildings in commercial areas, lying on the sidewalk, public urination and defecation, drinking in public, possessing a shopping car, and shouting in public.

Another objective of PCEI is to use the criminal justice and social service systems to force the homeless population of Berkeley into counseling and rehabilitation. While Berkeley has various resources and services for its approximately 800 homeless people, many do not utilize these programs or are not reached by social workers.

Homeless advocates have fought passionately to stop the initiative, which they argue victimizes the city’s most vulnerable residents by criminalizing their behavior. They argue that the $2 million per year cost required to fund the program would be better spent on housing.

Even so, the PCEI is hoped to revitalize Berkeley, especially the downtown and northern end of Shattuck Avenue, where merchants, residents and visitors have been complaining for years about disruptive street behavior.

City to Study Costs of Proposed Development

2008-03-06T14:08:00.000-08:00

Sameea Kamal, "City to Study Costs of Proposed Development," The Daily Californian, Mar. 6, 2008 (available at http://www.dailycal.org/article/100771/city_to_study_costs_of_proposed_development).

According to The Daily Californian, the Berkeley Planning Commission voted (6-3) to study the economic feasibility of the DAPAC downtown development plan before approving it. The study is estimated to potentially cost Berkeley $25,000 to $30,000.

Will Travis--we know him as DAPAC’s chair--voiced his support of the Planning Commission’s decision, while opponents criticized it as a tool for delaying development.

The main argument for the study was something we have heard more than once over these past few weeks: the cost of adding to a project the two additional stories permitted under DAPAC’s plan would outweigh the developer’s expected income.

The Commission will request approval for the funding at an upcoming City Council meeting, and the Council will then have to contract out for the study. Any findings would not be expected until June.

See also Richard Brenneman, Planners Make First Move to Challenge Downtown Plan, Berkeley Daily Planet (Feb. 29, 2008) (available at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-02-29/article/29344/print).

David Jackson summarized Brenneman's article for the blog on 3/5.

Is "The Main Street USA Approach" right for Berkeley?

2008-03-05T18:20:00.000-08:00

www.mainstreetusa.org

The “Main Street Approach” is a “community-driven, comprehensive methodology” to revitalize business districts, premised on encourag[ing] economic development within the context of historic preservation in ways appropriate to today's marketplace.” The Approach emphasizes that it is an “incremental” plan that is “not designed to produce immediate change,” and cautions against following in the footsteps of plans that fail to address the root causes of economic decline, choosing, rather, to go for quick-fix solutions like arena’s or pedestrian malls. Bolstering its claims, Main Street USA touts statistics proclaiming the creation of an average of 250 new jobs over 10 years, and cumulative net growth of new businesses totaling an average of 70 over the same period.

Me: “Wow! That sounds great! Where do I sign?”

Main Street USA: “Well, as it turns out, Berkeley is already a success story!”

Me: “Bees in the what now?”

Berkeley is listed among the success stories of the program, under the title “Berkeley, Calif., tackles social issues and alters perception of crime.” Listed among the achievements of the DBA’s adoption of the Main Street USA Approach are changing the city’s attitude towards the downtown area, tackling social issues (read: Homelessness), and altering the perception of crime downtown. To hear them tell it, Berkeley is already a thriving community with a strong economic outlook and a firm grip on the issues of homelessness and crime.

To understand how this might be, one need only look at the date of publication: 1997. Now, I have no idea what Berkeley was like in 1997, but I have no reason to doubt that it was well on its way towards fabulous revitalization. Berkeley circa 2008, however, appears to present a different perspective. Nevertheless, the Main Street USA Approach does appear to contain some useful advice for those contemplating a redevelopment scheme. The Approach emphasizes that the scheme must be comprehensive and incremental, incorporate Self-Help in the form of true commitment by the residents and business owners of the rewards of the program even if it requires changing their attitudes, emphasize quality in every aspect of the project, working with the existing strengths of the city, and implementing the plan in a way that yields frequent visible changes to remind those involved that the project is underway and is succeeding.

Applying these principles to the DAPAC plan, it appears that Berkeley may have a few lessons to learn. First, the DAPAC plan appears to fall victim to the urge to cut in broad swaths rather than making incremental gains. This is evident in the plan’s call for a pedestrian walkway on Center Street and the Day-Lighting of Strawberry Creek. These would constitute radical changes to the streetscape of the downtown area, not the incremental but visible improvements advised by Main Street USA. Second, from the accounts given by the various speakers and the narrow passage of the DAPAC plan (along with the veiled allegations that even some of those voting in support of the plan did so only because they doubt is real viability), Berkeley cannot claim to have built a consensus among the interested parties.

Still, all is not necessarily lost for Berkeley. Scanning the list of the “nuts-and-bolts ingredients” of a successful program, Berkeley’s situation does not seem hopeless. Of the seven ingredients listed, Berkeley satisfies five: (1) a traditional business district exists, with (2) a decent concentration of remaining businesses; (3) the area is committed to revitalizing the downtown, and (4) has adequate human and financial resources to do so (according to Mayor Bates, at least); finally, (5) there is a commitment to maintaining historical buildings. What Berkeley lacks is (1) broad-based support for the revitalization plan and (2) consensus among the affected parties. From this, it appears that Main Street USA would advise Berkeley to attempt to build a consensus in the community over the need for and implementation of a revitalization plan. Realistically, this seems unlikely. Given the creation of the DAPAC plan and the commencement of construction of the Brower Center and the new UC Berkeley Art Museum, though, the area does appear to be moving forward with incremental changes that have the potential to yield visible improvements in the area. Perhaps the success of these programs can be an end-run around the so-call consensus pre-requisite, turning public opinion in favor of the redevelopment plan after its implementation rather than before.

Planners Make First Move to Challenge Downtown Plan

2008-03-05T14:44:00.000-08:00

The Planning Commission took its formal position recently and it contradicted the stance of the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC). The commissioners asked City Council to fund a study to determine if the DAPAC plan was economically feasible.

The commission called for the evaluation to include 10-, 12-, 14- and 16-story buildings in considering what level of development would be needed to make the plan’s extensive collection of proposed amenities financially viable. This decision directly contrasts with the stated position of the DAPAC majority that height trumped other considerations in their decision to adopt the plan.

While the DAPAC plan will go to the city council, so will recommendations from the Planning Commission and city staff, leaving councilmembers to pick and choose the elements included in the version they finally approve.

The minority group in DAPAC, which wanted an economic study, contended that DAPAC’s restrictions on floor-area ratio and heights would limit development and thus reduce fees collected for parks, streetscape improvements and other amenities included in the plan.

However, the majority group believes that this study is merely a waste of time and a smokescreen in order to undo the adopted DAPAC plan.

The Planning Commission will begin its chapter-by-chapter plan review starting toward the end of March, and the commission will hand the plan on to the City Council in December.

Richard Brenneman, Planners Make First Move to Challenge Downtown Plan, Berkeley Daily Planet (Feb. 29, 2008), available at, http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-02-29/article/29344/print.

Becky O'Malley Editorials on Homelessness / PCEI

2008-03-05T11:25:00.001-08:00

Bluebook Citations:

Becky O’Malley, “Another Foggy Night on the Public Commons,” The Berkeley Daily Planet, May 11, 2007 (available at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2007-05-11/article/27037).

Becky O’Malley, “Thanks for Everything, and Why,” The Berkeley Daily Planet, Nov. 20, 2007 (available at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2007-11-20/article/28522).

Summary:

Becky O’Malley has written several editorial pieces in The Berkeley Daily Planet critiquing Mayor Bates’ proposal of the “Public Commons for Everyone Initiative” and its accompanying ordinance, most particularly in one editorial when the PCEI was initially proposed in May 2007 and again when the PCEI was formally passed by the City Council in November 2007.

O’Malley’s critiques are illuminating in several respects. First, she provides commentary about how the proposals were introduced and considered at the City Council meetings themselves. For example, O’Malley notes that in May 2007, the City Council did not even begin to debate the PCEI until 11:30pm, when many Berkeley citizens had gone home, and that the debate focused largely upon containing concerns about the homeless. O’Malley writes, for example, that “Councilmember Wozniak told a harrowing anecdote about the time his wife and son saw a vagrant deliberately peeing on the radiator grill of an expensive car on Telegraph—the horror! I’m sure that never happened back in Nebraska.”

Second, O’Malley notes that part of the problem with the PCEI is not simply the content of the ordinance but the way in which it will change the priorities of police enforcement of existing criminal laws. O’Malley writes in her May 2007 editorial, for example:

But perhaps Recommendation 4 would take care of that: “Provide for strict enforcement of all existing laws affecting the quality of life in public spaces and parks.” Oh sure, and in the meantime the drug dealers down around Oregon and Sacramento are cheering. This one will keep the police off the streets and out of trouble, busy handing out tickets for public smoking.

The problem, that is, is that police required to enforce the PCEI’s ordinance on public smoking and lying in the street will be drawn away from doing policing of actual drug crimes, particularly in the context of limited police resources. While I agree with O’Malley on this score, I also think it is notable that Mayor Bates indicated when he visited our class that the PCEI essentially would not be enforced at all.

Third, the final point to note is that O’Malley seems to downplay the effect of the homeless upon the environment in downtown Berkeley, referring to public urination and defecation as being the natural effect of failing to provide bathrooms to people without money and options in being able to use private restrooms. In fact, O’Malley’s November 2007 editorial is devoted entirely to the irony that the City Council considered the PCEI precisely at the time when Mayor Bates had the luxury of celebrating Thanksgiving and enforcing laws against those without the money or the homes to celebrate themselves.

The Cost Effectiveness of Supportive Housing for the Homeless

2008-03-04T17:12:00.000-08:00

The federal government authorized supportive housing as a homeless prevention strategy in 1987. The authorization was in the form of the Stuart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987.

Supportive housing entails making affordable housing units available to individuals who have need for such housing and for “support services.” Support services are services that help individuals live independently. These services include treatment for medical conditions, employment and training, referral for Medicaid, or assistance in applying for Social Security disability or Supplemental Security Income.

Generally, supportive housing is designed to meet the needs of deinstitutionalized homeless persons, homeless individuals with a mental disability or other handicap, and homeless families and children.

Walsh et al. investigated whether providing affordable housing and support services to the homeless reduced the total cost of homeless-related social services. For example, helping a homeless individual manage his health care needs may decrease his total healthcare costs. This reduction in healthcare costs is achieved by encouraging the individual to rely on primary care providers rather than on hospital emergency rooms for primary care. Treatment from primary care providers generally costs less than similar treatment in hospital emergency rooms. As another example, supportive housing may lead to cost savings by decreasing the need for police to enforce laws against the homeless, which also decreases court and jail costs.

Walsh et al. gathered data on the 21 residents of the supportive housing complex Lennox Chase in Wake County, North Carolina. The data of interest were the costs of the social services—including shelter costs—used by 21 residents prior to entering Lennox Chase and the costs of the social services used by 21 residents after entering Lennox Hill. A before-after comparison of the costs indicated that overall service costs had fallen from $377,141.66 in the two years before entry to $265,785.20 in the two years after entry, a decline of $111,356.46, or 29.53%. If the cost of social worker who was stationed at Lennox Chase was excluded, the service costs decline to $210,950.00, a decline of 44%.[1]

[1] Adam Walsh, Dean Duncan, Laurie Selz-Campbell, and Jennifer Vaughn, The Cost Effectiveness of Supportive Housing, UNC-CH School of Social Work, December 2007 at 2 (http://www.endlongtermhomelessness.org/downloads/news/lennoxchase_costs.pdf).

Paper topic

2008-03-04T12:11:00.000-08:00

I would like to work on city infrastructure. I'm particularly interested in green space issues, and particularly the proposal to close a portion of Center Street and/or Shattuck Ave. I'm also interested in the parking issue.

Berkeley Mayor Went Homeless for a Night

2008-03-03T18:50:00.001-08:00

Not exactly on point, but I thought it was really interesting
especially given the mayor's recent Public Commons Initiative and his
responses to questions about the homeless when he came to speak.

On April 22, 2003, Berkeley's mayor Tom Bates spent 24 hours
living as a homeless person after he was challenged to do so by a member of
Berkeley¹s permanent homeless population during his campaign.
The mayor began his 24 hours at 4 pm on a Tuesday and got his
first free meal at Trinity Baptist Church. He then did a walking tour of
Telegraph Ave, went to the Berkeley Free Clinic, and hung out in People¹s
Park. The mayor eventually went to sleep in the park behind City Hall with
about 25 other people, and was awakened at 2 a.m. by a policeman, whom he
told he had special permission from the mayor to sleep there. He was then
awakened again at 4 a.m. by gathering news crews. Finally the mayor got up
and got a free breakfast at Trinity Methodist Church. He then spent time at
the Homeless Action Center and the Center for Independent Living.
The mayor stated that he wanted to do this "to draw attention to
the problem and learn more about it himself." He apparently saw a lot of
tragic cases but was also elated by the number of volunteers that were
assisting the homeless in numerous ways.

Mayor's Office, "Media Advisory: Mayor Bates to go Homeless on April 22nd,"

Apr. 16, 2003, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/mayor//PR/pressrelease041603.htm.

Charles Burress, "Homeless for a night: Berkeley mayor keeps promise, sleeps
with city's down-and-out," The San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 24, 2003,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/24/BA291997.DTL

Thread for "TDRs" Paper Topic

2008-03-03T15:46:00.000-08:00

This is a thread for those interested in writing about TDRs. Hopefully, we can use it to coordinate more effectively (plus -- it helps minimize frontpage clutter).

Please "vote" for the TDRs topic by expressing your interest in the comments section below. If you have specific areas you would like to write about, please note them as well.

Thanks.

Homeless Services in Berkeley

2008-03-03T14:57:00.001-08:00

I wanted to find out what services were available for homeless people in the Berkeley area. I found a Homeless Survival Guide distributed by the Berkeley Free Clinic.

For meals, breakfasts are available Monday through Saturday at the University Lutheran Chapel at College and Haste. Food is also provided by the Food Not Bombs Lunch every Monday through Friday at People’s Park. Hot lunches are available Monday, Wednesday and Friday at the McGee Avenue Baptist Church in Berkeley. The South Berkeley Community Church provides lunched on Thursdays and the St. Paul AME Church provides lunch on Tuesday. The only dinners I found were provided by the Emergency Food Project every Monday through Friday at 4pm.

There were also several shelters listed in Berkeley. The Harrison Home in Berkeley is available, but individuals must sign up at 9am to use the shelter. The Veterans Building in Berkeley provides a Men’s Shelter. Individuals must sign up at 10am to use the shelter. Women’s Refuge and Women’s Shelter provide shelters for women in Berkeley.

Other services that are available in Berkeley include a Berkeley Food Pantry, several drop in clinics that provide medical and mental health assistance, free clothing boxes in People’s Park and at the Ann Carter Free Clothes Center, free showers at MASC in Berkeley, a number of free legal clinics, 3 organizations providing employment assistance, and a number of care centers providing alcohol and drug assistance programs.

Berkeley Free Clinic Homeless Survival Guide.

http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/download/Homeless%20Survival%20Guide.pdf

Paper Topic

2008-03-03T14:55:00.000-08:00

I would like to write on the Infrastructure portion of the paper. I am particularly interested in the parking issue, but I am flexible.

Topic of Interest - Homelessness

2008-03-02T18:23:00.001-08:00

I will be writing my paper on the homeless. Hopefully I will be able to elaborate on a subsidy plan for college students taking in homeless people and legal implications of doing so. I wouldn't mind writing on other subjects as well.

-Efren

Paper Topic

2008-03-02T15:04:00.001-08:00

I would like to work on the homelessness issue. Specifically, I'm interested in Berkeley's current policies and laws addressing homelessness as well as the relationship between homelessness/crime and economic development.

Housing for the homeless: Q&A with Sam Davis, Berkeley professor and affordable-housing architect

2008-03-02T14:57:00.000-08:00

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/10/25_architecture.html

In an article published in late 2002, architect and former chair of UC Berkeley’s architecture department Sam Davis speaks about the issues involved in providing housing for the poor and homeless. He has completed significant research on architecture for the homeless and has authored two previous books, The Form of Housing and The Architecture of Affordable Housing. He has also collaborated with other design firms and nonprofits on many homeless and affordable housing projects, including the first-phased renovation of University Village, UC Berkeley’s married-student housing in Albany; a 100-bed homeless shelter in Contra Costa County; Larkin Street Youth Services of San Francisco’s facility for homeless youth with HIV and AIDS; and Lark-Inn, a transitional shelter on San Francisco’s Ellis Street for homeless and runaway kids.

Davis says that a common misconception about the homeless population is that it is homogeneous when it is not. The homeless consist of families with children, of seniors, of people who are mentally and physically ill, of people with substance abuses, and runaway kids. Each of these populations has different housing and services needs. Thus, builders have to understand what those people’s needs, ambitions and desires are, and balance them with other things like the community context and the budget.

Another misconception is that using low-cost materials will allow for more housing. Davis says the construction costs are a relatively minor component of a project’s total, not nearly as important as the cost of financing, the cost of land, the soft costs and the political costs.

To lower costs and increase the number of affordable housing units built, Davis says it is important to balance repetition – which saves money – with architectural interest. The more elements are repeated such as structural frames, bathrooms, kitchens, cabinets, the more you save. However, focusing only on such cost-savings measures will produce the type of public housing no one likes. Instead, Davis describes the challenge as that of using architectural gestures where they have the most impact, like bay windows and covered entries. Such additions do not significantly increase costs, but they do add much to variety and function.

Davis also believes that it is important that homeless people not get isolated and that they be integrated as much as possible into mainstream housing. Most of his projects have been low-rise, freestanding units, which he attributes to the fact that most people want to live in a single-family detached house. Davis believes that the goal of affordable housing should be to supply as many of the amenities of the single-family house as possible. For instance, with University Village in Albany, the goal was to construct sets of individual houses, in which every single apartment has its own front door and own address.

While providing housing for the homeless comes at the expense of the public’s tax dollars, society itself benefits from well-designed places for the homeless. Davis speaks of the millions of dollars spent to hide the homeless and clean up after them. He believes this money can be put to better use with more and better facilities. Then, the homeless people are not only removed from the street, but they are also integrated into the community.

Please VOTE on your preferred topic.

2008-03-02T09:20:00.000-08:00

Hi all.

Prof. Infelise asked me to post a reminder to vote online about which paper topics we wanted to choose. Please everyone post a quick note on what paper topic you'd like to work on from among the topics that Matt Sieving posted on the site and that we broke into groups to discuss on Thurs.

I would like to work on homelessness rates and crime rates in downtown Berkeley (shockingly).

Jess

Berkeley's Plan for the Homeless

2008-03-02T01:18:00.000-08:00

This article provides an overview of Berkeley’s homeless services plan. Last November, the City Council approved a $1 million “Public Commons for Everyone Initiative,” which would include the following:

- $350,000 a year on rental subsidies and intensive support services for 10 to 15 chronically homeless adults.

- $200,000 on a "Berkeley Host Program" with people on the streets who would work among street people, visitors, residents, police and social services agencies to identify problems in the commercial districts.

- $142,000 for four new portable toilets downtown and expanded public toilet hours at two public parking garages.

- A $350-a-month stipend for business owners who want to open their bathrooms to the public.

- $100,000 in programs to help homeless youth.

- $60,000 on a central intake system to help Berkeley's approximately 800 homeless people find shelter.

-$60,000 on more seats and trash cans downtown.

- And $10,000 on new no-smoking signs.

The plan would be funded by an increase in parking meter fees—from $1.00 an hour to $1.25 per hour. The plan is design to get Berkeley’s 800 homeless people off the street and integrated back into society. Additionally, the plan bans sleeping on the sidewalks in commercial areas. It is also easier for police to issue citations for people camping on all sidewalks (the previous system required one citizen complaint and two police warnings; the current system requires one police warning). Concurrently, the Council also approved to ban smoking in public areas, namely sidewalks, parks, athletic fields, hiking trails and bike paths. The area left on the table for debate was whether or not there was an increased need for enforcement of people who sleep on the sidewalks.

Doug Oakley, "Berkeley Approves One Million for Homeless Services Plan," Oakland Tribune (Nov 29 2007).

Jenny Cheung

Transfer Development Rights as Applied to Agricultural Land Use Protections

2008-02-29T22:25:00.000-08:00

Timothy J. Lawrence, Transfer of Development Rights, Land Use Series, Ohio State University, available at http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1264.html (last visited February 29, 2008).

This piece is useful not only as a clear and coherent introduction to the Transfer of Development Rights (“TDRs”), but also unique for the manner in which it advocates for the potential use of TDRs for the purpose of protecting farm land in Ohio.

It explains TDRs in terms of the Purchase of Development Rights (“PDRs”) and distinguishes them on the basis that TDRs rely on a set "receiving" and "sending" area, and an exchange in development rights between the two.

Notably, the article also makes reference to state law amendments geared toward the recognition of TDRs and incorporation of the phenomenon into state real estate and development codes. As such perhaps this is an area in which we can use state law reforms and legislators (generally more favorable to development than those of Berkeley City government) and essentially bypass local ordinances.

Brainstorm Topics for Papers

2008-02-28T18:55:00.000-08:00

Transfer Development Rights

Tie in w/ historic preservation.
How used elsewhere: case studies, both empirical and theoretical
How to implement in Berkeley

Political issues
Legal issues

Height/density tie in.

Historic Preservation

What is protected?
What else could be protected?
Ordinances & mechanisms for designation
Comparisons w/ other cities
How to improve existing ordinances
Impact on economic development

Homelessness

Relationship btw homelessness/crime and economic development

Case studies?
How has this played-out in Berkeley in the past?

Infrastructure issues w.r.t. lighting, open spaces, etc.

Existing Berkeley policies/laws

Role of service providers

Service providers’ take on PCEI

Proposed solutions: redrafting ordinances

Housing the homeless: alternatives

How do federal policies/statutes bear on this?

Infrastructure

Pedestrian walk-way
BRT/LRT proposal
Parking issues

Case studies from cities that have implemented info-dense systems

Parking metering policies

Height/density issues

Maybe a better fit w/ TDR group?

The Charles Hotel

Capital crisis

New Berkeley Museum

What do students want downtown?

Green development & greening the current infrastructure

Current legislative/political regime

Current economics

Residential/commercial/mixed-use

Open spaces & parks

Where?

How much?

Water feature????

David Brower Center and Oxford Plaza: Berkeley Sustainable Development

2008-02-28T10:29:00.000-08:00

After seven years in planning, The David Brower Center and Resources for Community Development (RCD) began construction on a landmark green development in downtown Berkeley. The multi-use complex is intended to be a model of environmentally and socially sustainable planning. It will be built within walking distance of public transportation and include affordable homes and retail space at Oxford Plaza.

The Brower Center will be a LEED-Platinum-certified building, where the Center’s nonprofit office tenants may be able to benefit from collaboration and a healthy working environment. It will be among the first buildings in the Bay Area to receive the highest LEED green building rating. The Brower Center will include 50,000 square feet of affordable office space leased primarily to nonprofit organizations, the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Theater, meeting spaces, an art gallery, and an organic restaurant.

Move-in is scheduled for January 2009, and the Brower Center has a waiting list of more than 30 organizations, including the California League of Conservation Voters, International Rivers Network and Build It Green. The Center for Ecoliteracy and Earth Island Institute are among the Center’s anchor tenants.

David Brower, a pioneer in the environmental movement, was the Sierra Club’s first executive director and founded the League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth, and Earth Island Institute. Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates stated, “The David Brower Center will provide an international center for environmental research, advocacy, and innovation. I can think of no more appropriate place in the world for this work to take place."

Oxford Plaza will meet a need for affordable housing in Berkeley by creating 97 units of affordable, high-quality rental units. The new apartments – from studios to 3-bedroom units – will be affordable to those usually priced out of Bay Area housing, from individuals bringing in less than $12,000 yearly to families of four earning up to $50,280 annually. The Plaza is located close to BART, buses, jobs and amenities.

Resources for Community Development (RCD) is a non-profit affordable housing development corporation. Founded by Berkeley community members in 1984, RCD currently has a portfolio of over 1,300 affordable housing units that it has developed or owns in Northern California.

Press Release, Landmark Sustainable Development Breaks Ground in Berkeley: The David Brower Center and Oxford Plaza Merge Environmental Headquarters, Cultural Venues, and Affordable Housing (May 14, 2007), http://www.browercenter.org/?q=node/98

Touring downtown with DAPAC

2008-02-27T12:59:00.001-08:00

In 2005, DAPAC Committee members, joined by city and UC Berkeley staff and members of the public, took a two-and-a-half-hour tour of the district that will be the subject of a new central city plan.

The university’s plans include adding approximately one million square feet of floor space downtown, both in acquisition of existing buildings and in new development. Just how to accommodate that massive expansion is part of all DAPAC discussions.

Members spent part of Saturday focused on Oxford/Fulton Street and Center Street.

The one-block stretch of Center Street between Oxford Street and Shattuck Avenue was the focus of considerable attention because the university owns most of the block on the north side of the street, where it plans to build a museum complex and is working with a private developer to create a hotel and conference center. Several speakers asked the committee to consider proposals to close the street to through traffic and “daylight” Strawberry Creek—which now flows in a concrete culvert beneath the pavement—to create a public plaza.

Another issue with Downtown Berkeley is the lack of a central focus. “There is no central focus now,” said John McBride, who posited that, with proper handling, the two-block triangle created by the split of the north- and south-bound lanes of Shattuck could fit the bill.

After the walking tour, several participants expressed a new appreciation for Berkeley’s landmarked buildings—which were featured in a map distributed to all participants. Members of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association were present in force to argue for preservation of the numerous city landmarks in the downtown area. While several participants said they felt downtown lacked sufficient parking, Wrenn noted that parking spaces are abundant, particularly in structures, and that the only real parking crush comes between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. on weekdays, when the available parking often drops to about 200 slots.

Several members said they thought many of Berkeley’s sidewalks were often too crowded and too narrow. In addition, they believed that it was disgusting that the streets were littered.

Richard Brenneman, Touring Downtown With DAPAC, Berkeley Daily Planet (Dec. 6 2005), available at, http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2005-12-06/article/22892.

Transportation Options

2008-02-26T14:05:00.000-08:00

I found a presentation on Transportation Options that was presented at a meeting of the Transportation Commission and DAPAC. The presentation suggested creating a transportation model which would create a way to assess how transportation in Berkeley functions today and in the future. This would provide decision makers with a method of testing the transportation consequences of their decisions. It would also allow the city to test how various development plans would impact transportation in downtown. The transportation model could also help disclose potential environmental impacts of policy decisions. The transportation model would test such things as the quantity and distributions of trips (origins and destinations), the mode split of trips (cars, transit, walking and bikes), travel patterns (direction and flow), traffic performance (intersections volume and capacity), and other performance issues, including those related to parking.

The presentation also mentioned some of the transportation options that the city is considering, including converting travel lanes to bike lanes, sidewalks, or landscape, creating Shattuck square, boulevard options for Shattuck, and moving BART from Shattuck to Oxford. The presentation discussed First Street in Livermore as an example of transportation remodeling. Here, the city converted 2 lanes into angled parking and paved former parking lanes to create a downtown street segment that was pedestrian-friendly.

Presentation by the Transportation Commission and DAPAC of January 31, 2007 re: Transportation and Land Use Options, available at http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=11718

Build it and they will come?

2008-02-25T21:33:00.001-08:00

Josh Mukhopadhyay

Background:

Patrick Kennedy mentioned his plan to mix housing and social services in his future Berkeley developments on the first day of class. Since then his proposal has come up repeatedly, both as a positive that should be explored further and as a cautionary example of a developer building coalitions with sympathetic partners simply to help get through the entitlement process.

Mr. Kennedy’s theory of change basically says build it and they will come. ‘They’ are the future residents of downtown housing who will in turn induce demand for retail and also create a political constituency that demands public safety improvements. This model’s fundamental assumption is that the pioneering residents will stick it out between move-in and the lagging commercial development and improved neighborhoods.

Are the two above notions compatible? If you seek to draw in middle and upper-class residents to ‘homestead’ an urban area, they will do so with the expectation that the neighborhood will improve over time. If some of those ground floor retail spots where new residents hope to someday find a Starbucks, Gordon Biersch or Banana Republic instead end up holding a homeless shelter or halfway house, will the whole model unravel?

Summary:

Downtown Los Angeles’ Skid Row area has been being gentrified over the past decade and has faced a similar dynamic. Loft dwellers have brought life to formerly derelict areas, but commercial development has been limited and the social problems have been squeezed into the ever shrinking not yet gentrified area available to the homeless population.

A recent LA Times article tells the story of the Little Tokyo Lofts – a six story former factory that was turned into condos that sold for between $400,000 and $1,200,000. The building included a 6,500 square foot ground floor retail space, and developers hoped to sign a boutique market like TJ’s. Even though the area recently lured its first supermarket in fifty years, that firm (a Ralph’s) located itself on the very edge of Skid Row. While it has been doing brisk business, other retailers haven’t yet decided to follow suit and move in nearby, much less locate in the core area. But the developer’s pro forma had assumed the commercial space would be rented, and eventually had to settle for a sub-optimal tenant.

In the end, a social service provider moved in and will be use the space for its mental health program. Everybody is understandably upset with this outcome – loft residents feel like they were sold a bill of goods and may badmouth future development efforts and the service provider is in a building where they know their landlord didn’t really want them and where their patients are unwanted. If ground floor retail space can be difficult to fill with desirable tenants in a still gentrifying area, the build it and they will come model for a mixed-use community may fall flat. The remedies might range from expensive subsidies to attract business to settling for ‘undesirable’ tenants like social service providers. These will further complicate the project’s economic analysis.

Source:

Cara Mia DiMassa, Little Tokyo residents resent mental health facility, L.A. Times, February 21, 2008, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lofts21feb21,0,4937026.story.

Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation

2008-02-25T20:53:00.001-08:00

Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, "The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Washington State: Executive Summary,"http://www.dahp.wa.gov/pages/HistoricSites/documents/EconomicDevStudyExecuti
veSummary_000.pdf.

The Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation from Washington analyzed the economic effects of historic preservation (which I assume means upkeep, repair and restoration) over a 4-year period and found that it was actually economically beneficial to the state. This runs contrary to a lot of common assumptions about historic preservation, which is that it detracts from new development which is supposedly more economically beneficial.
This Executive Summary of their much longer report highlights the findings of the study:
"Data compiled on Washington state projects taking advantage of federal and state historic building rehabilitation tax credit programs indicate that historic rehabilitation activities qualifying under these programs from 2000 to 2004 involved average spending of $83.5 million each year. These investments generate direct economic impacts through the purchase of goods and services. Expenditures also generate indirect and induced activity in other parts of the economy through related spending at local businesses by supporting industries and households."
"In Washington State, the initial annual investment of $83.5 million generated total sales of $221 million, supported 2,320 jobs in a variety of economic sectors, and paid $87 million in wages and salaries each year. This economic activity generated an estimated $8.9 million in state sales and Business and Occupation taxes, as well as local sales tax revenue (which are not included in this total)."
The report goes on to state that these totals underestimate the true value of historic preservation and rehabilitation because they only take into account projects that qualify under the federal and state tax credit programs and omit spending by governments, charitable organizations, and individuals on their own homes. The authors advocate the "Washington Main Street Program," which restores traditional main streets as some are hoping for in Berkeley, and believes that historic preservation leads to "cultural heritage tourism," which is defined as "traveling to experience the places, artifacts and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present."
The take-away point of this report is that perhaps historic preservation and economic development are not mutually exclusive, and that Downtown Berkeley might benefit from historic rehabilitation and preservation as much as it may from new building development. Both have the potential to lead to a revitalization of the neighborhood, but together their effects could be even greater.

Why some homeless avoid shelters

2008-02-25T20:23:00.000-08:00

Mayor Bates stated emphatically that the homeless do not like living in homeless shelters. I wanted to find out the reasons why some homeless avoid shelters.

It is true that some homeless tend to avoid shelters. The reasons for avoidance vary and depend somewhat on the homeless person’s demographics and idiosyncrasies. Some of the reasons I found were derived from responses by the homeless to inquiries from news reporters. Those reasons are therefore anecdotal. Still, I believe we can learn something from their responses.

First of all, some homeless have developed social communities on the street and find it difficult to leave their communities for homeless shelters.[1] To put it more directly, life on the street has its own appeal.[2]

To continue, common complaints about shelters across the entire homeless demographic are (1) the fighting, (2) lack of personal space, and (3) having to be near crack-heads and other worrisome people.[3] Other less common complaints include abusive shelter staff—although it is unclear whether the abuse is real or only perceived—and stifling rules and regulations.[4]

Families and women with children avoid shelters because they fear the “rough element” (e.g., single males) and poor conditions at many shelters, and they may prefer to live with other families or to live outdoors.[5]

Even men find shelters unfriendly and unsafe. Shelters may be populated with a mixture of criminals, the mentally ill, addicts and other troubled people. [6] In New York, for example, hundreds of men fill the shelters after working, panhandling, or collecting cans, and just hang out or use drugs and drink.[7] The atmosphere can be intimidating, and many residents compare the atmosphere to that of prisons, where the strong often prey on the weak. [8] Furthermore, “fights and petty thefts are common.”[9] Indeed, a homeless man in New York opted to sleep outside rather than in a shelter, even in the middle of winter. He exclaimed, “Trust me, these shelters are trouble. They get crazy there and maybe they steal your sneakers.”[10]

“Young [homeless] people often avoid adult shelters because their pets are not allowed entry. Also they feel threatened by adults.”[11] In addition, many youths dislike the rules and regulations of the shelters. They would rather live a barrier-free life, and that often entails snuggling up in nooks and corners all over the city, or just about anywhere the cops won’t be able to get a hold of them.[12]

[1] C.W. Nevius, Tour of homeless shelters contradicts unsafe image, The San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 18, 2007, B-1.

[2] Id. at B-1.

[3] Brian Feagans, Walk a mile in the shoes of Road Dog and Peg Leg; Life's a constant struggle for survival when you're ON THE FRINGE, Star-News, Dec. 27, 1998, A-1.

[4] Nevius at B-1; Riya Bhattacharjee, Program Aims to Remove Homeless Youth from the Streets of Berkeley, The Berkeley Daily Planet, Feb. 28, 2006, at 1, 14.

[5] Edward F. Vacha and Marguerite V. Marin, Informal Shelter Providers: Low Income Households Sheltering the Homeless, Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1993, at 117, 119.

[6] Josh Barbanel, Still on the streets: New York’s homeless avoid shelters, New York Times, Dec. 17, 1988, A-1.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Somini Sengupta, Despite Cold, Some Homeless Devise Strategies to Avoid Shelters, New York Times, Jan. 4, 1999, B-5.

[11] Bhattacharjee at 5, 14.

[12] Id. at 14.

Sub-prime Debt Crisis and the Redevelopment of Berkeley’s Downtown

2008-02-25T11:54:00.001-08:00

Charles v. Bagli, Developer Holds Off Creditors, For Now, New York Times, February 16, 2008.
Peter S. Goodman, This is the Sound of a Bubble Bursting, New York Times, December 23, 2007.

Although there is some dispute as to the degree to which the impending debt crisis and fall of the real estate markets will influence the potential development of downtown Berkeley, I think the issue is at least worth further examination and discussion.

The articles cited here demonstrate that the ramifications of the sub-prime crisis on the debt market are having a significant impact on private development efforts, even in large, affluent cities like New York. Specifically, this impact seems to come from the fact that it is now more difficult for even solvent, reliable developers to get debt at a decent rate (such that justifies the investment at cost and allows then to make a profit) than in years past. This is wholly in addition to the related concern of decreased demand.

Although this does not translate directly into a potential paper topic for our class, it does, at least in my mind, stress the importance of acting now and capitalizing on the current abundance of private developers interested in putting their own money into revising downtown, while that interest still exists.

Bay Area needs to rethink its rules on land use, zoning

2008-02-24T23:43:00.000-08:00

Joseph Perkins, Bay Area needs to rethink its rules on land use, zoning, Oct 21, 2007, S.F. Chron., at F-1.

In this SF Chronicle article from October 2007, Joseph Perkins[1] asks: “How and where is the Bay Area going to house its additional 1.5 million residents?” His question contemplates projections made by the Association of Bay Area Governments in 2007: 1.5 million new residents are expected in the nine-county Bay Area region by 2030.

Perkins is concerned that the Bay Area will not be able to meet its housing production needs if the region’s recent history is an accurate predictor of its future performance. Contra Costa, he notes, is the only county from 1999 to 2006 to have kept pace with its population and employment growth. And the affordable housing supply was particularly poor: only six of 101 cities met the needs of their qualifying residents.

So what is the cause of the Bay Area’s shortcomings? Perkins blames excessive land-use regulations that make it “arguably the nation’s least hospitable region in which to build housing.” But going a step beyond, Perkins faults the “no-growth, anti-housing environmental alliance” whose activism has led to large and permanent open space designations. He also accuses them of hiding from the “unsuspecting public” that “only 16 percent of the region’s land area has been developed.”

With respect to future housing needs, Perkins says that the Bay Area environmental groups inaccurately suggest these needs can be met by smaller-scale, infill development within that 16 percent. By Perkins’ estimations, only one quarter of the projected 1.5 million people could be so accommodated. Green field development, he says, would be required to meet the needs of the remaining three quarters.

Perkins adds that if the environmental groups achieve their next large open space campaign, housing production will be further dampened and home prices will increase beyond the affordability of many next generation Bay Area residents.

And as a final twist to his knife, Perkins cites to a paper published by the Harvard Institute of Economic Research to conclude that affordability problems cannot be adequately combated through the imposition of affordable housing requirements upon builders. Housing prices are “three times higher” in this region, snaps Perkins, not because “home builders are somehow three times more avaricious than their counterparts in the rest of the country. It’s because the region’s land use restrictions and other anti-housing regulations are three times more onerous.”

[1] Perkins is President and CEO of the Home Builders Association of Northern California.

Downtown Portland Wrestles with the Idea of a Day-Access Homeless Shelter

2008-02-24T20:15:00.000-08:00

This article on downtown Portland highlights the classic debate on how best to address a city’s homeless population in face of urban renewal. Downtown Portland is in its third year of a ten year downtown renewal effort. In addition to an overnight homeless shelter, city leaders and advocate for the homeless seek to create a day-access center for homeless people. The center would be funded by the city, and managed by non-profits. Essentially, this day-access shelter would receive the homeless kicked out of the overnight shelter. Since most shelters close in the early morning, the homeless have few places to go besides the street. The shelter would provide a place for the homeless to “drink coffee, stay warm and receive help finding a permanent home.” Free haircuts, bike storage, mail delivery, computer lab, and a foot care clinic are other amenities currently under discussion. City Commissioner Sten argues that this new center will not add homeless people to Portland’s Old Town, but will help them leave. The commissioner also argues that the location in Old Town is preferable to other sites because it provides the easiest access. However, Carol McCreary, president of the Old Town Chinatown Neighborhood Association, cautions that the location of the center will pose a public safety issue for the neighborhood which has “come so far from its skid row days.” While property owners and residents in the area oppose the construction of the Center, the Commissioner states that “there is no City Council member who is going to give them (downtown) $300 million and not put the center there.”

Anna Griffin, “Old Town Homeless Center Strokes Ageless Debate,” The Oregonian, (Jan. 24 2008).

Jenny Cheung

Homelessness and Downtown Revitalization in Houston

2008-02-24T15:44:00.000-08:00

Dallas, Texas, like Berkeley, is struggling to revitalize its downtown district while dealing with a large homeless population. A recent study looks at the impact of homelessness on downtown revitalization and concludes that an effective strategy to reduce homelessness will lead to further enhancement of the arts district, Main Street retail, and downtown office and residential properties.[1]

The business community in Dallas has recognized that solving the homelessness problem is critical to downtown revitalization efforts.[2] In 2000, the Central Citizens Association commissioned the Center for Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas to examine the economic and fiscal costs of homelessness.[3] The study found a large disparity in property values in the northern and southern sectors of the downtown district. Property values rose almost 100 percent in the northern half between 1995 and 200, and only 70 percent in the southern half where most of the city’s homeless are concentrated.[4] The cost in terms of foregone potential property tax receipts was several million dollars.[5]

A follow-up study in 2004 looked at Miami’s successful strategy to reduce homelessness and its positive impact on downtown revitalization. Miami built two homeless shelters and developed a comprehensive assistance program that provides outreach, assessment, placement, information, referral, and transportation services.[6] As of 2003, there were only 941 homeless persons in Miami, 350 of whom were in the downtown area.[7] Local private and public business development organizations, including the Downtown Miami Partnership, the Downtown Development Authority, and the Miami Community Redevelopment Agency, all agree on the importance of addressing homelessness as an important ingredient in downtown revitalization. [8] The city’s business and political leaders attribute the downtown’s building boom and retail growth to a decrease in the number of homelessness, a significant reduction in crime, and improved parking facilities.[9]

The follow-up study then surveyed business owners in Dallas’s downtown district to measure the impact of homeless persons on business activity.[10] The survey revealed that homeless individuals have a large impact on downtown businesses. Forty-five percent of respondents reported that they incurred additional business expenses due to the presence of homeless persons.[11] Of these businesses, 41% estimated their additional costs to be between $1,000 and $3,000 per month, and 35% estimated their costs to be $5,000 or more per month.[12] These expenses were attributed to additional cleaning, security, or both.[13]

Further, 56.6% of business owners said sales were affected by the presence of homeless persons, and 76.3% had considered relocating out of the downtown district because of the presence of homeless persons.[14]

The study also re-examined the impact of homelessness on property values in the downtown district.[15] The 2000 study had found that the average real property value for improvements in the southern sector was only $59.84 per square foot, compared with $78.75 per square foot in the northern sector in 2000.[16] While property values fell overall in the ensuing years, the disparity between sectors remained in 2003. The average real property values came to $47.23 per square foot in southern sector, compared with $63.30 in north [17] The City of Dallas, Dallas County, and the Dallas Independent School District are losing $2.4 million per year dear to valuation disparities from lack of development in southern half of the downtown district.[18]

The report concludes that the “overwhelming” presence of homeless persons on the streets of the downtown district has negative economic impacts on individual business, the prospects for redevelopment, and the city’s tax revenues.[19]

[1] Bernard L. Weinstein and Terry L. Clower, Improving Services to Dallas’ Homeless: A Key to Downtown Revitalization 3 (Center for Economic Development and Research 2004).
[2] Id. at 1-2.
[3] Id. at 2.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id. at 13.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 14.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 15.
[11] Id. at 16.
[12] Id. at 17.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id. at 19.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id. at 19-20.
[19] Id. at 22.

Another College Town Considers Public Transit Options for Its Downtown

2008-02-23T17:16:00.000-08:00

Ann Arbor, MI, has drawn comparisons to Berkeley for many reasons, not the least of which is that both cities house famous universities. The two now appear to warrant another comparison, as both are considering implementing overhauls to their cores that have the potential to substantially change their respective downtown areas. As The Ann Arbor News reports, Ann Arbor is currently considering the construction of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) system employing streetcars, a proposal that some argue would lend a “much hipper, urban feel to the city.”

Detractors from the proposal point to the costs associated with such a system, which have been suggested to exceed $50 million. Supporters, in response, point to the success of the recently completed LRT system of streetcars in Seattle, WA, which has seen ridership in the first six weeks more than double pre-construction estimates, totaling over 100,000. Rick Sheridan, the spokesperson for the Seattle Transportation Department, explains that people who would refuse to utilize other forms of public transportation have nevertheless embraced the streetcar system. Portland, OR, has seen similar success with its streetcar system, with ridership almost tripling in the last year to 11,000 riders per day. Moreover, streetcar systems from Portland to Tampa, Fla., have spurred investment in the surrounding areas: Portland has enjoyed $2.28 billion in investments in within a 2-block radius of the system since it was installed in 1997, while Tampa has seen a $1.2 billion investment within the same radius of its own system since completion in 2002.

Nevertheless, costs remain a significant hurdle to the construction of any LRT system. The cost of completing these systems in Seattle, Tampa and Portland, each of which installed roughly 2.5 miles of rails, have been $51m, $55m, and $57m, respectively. To cover these costs, those cities utilized a combination of public and private financing.

With respect to Berkeley, which is already considering some form of augmented public transit both within its own downtown area and to increase regional connectivity, the likelihood of adopting an LRT system seems small, as a recently commissioned study concluded that a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system would better serve the needs of the region. Nevertheless, the study did hold out the establishment of an LRT system as a longer-term goal for the area. In either event, the finding of increased investment in the area surrounding the transit route is heartening, as Berkeley has had difficulties in recent years attracting and retaining new businesses in its downtown area. Further, the city’s newfound commitment to “greening” the city would be well served by an augmented public transit system, and the success of the Portland and Seattle LRTs in attracting users that would otherwise not use public transit suggests that the construction of such a system in this area would advance these laudable environmental goals.

Tom Gantert, Some see streetcars in Ann Arbor's future, THE ANN ARBOR NEWS, Feb. 23, 2008.

Starting Proposal for Paper on Homelessness / PCEI

2008-02-22T09:36:00.001-08:00

Hi everyone,

I wanted to share a starting proposal for how we could structure a paper on the presence of the homeless downtown. I tried to suggest a fairly flexible format which could be expanded or narrowed depending upon how many people want to write on this topic. I should add that even though this paper is technically about the homeless, I think any discussion about the homeless downtown also has to address the relationship between the homeless and crime rates (while maintaining a distinction between the homeless and those who are committing crimes). To that end, I think our paper should include some isolated discussion of crime rates downtown.

Please have a look at what I have written below and share your ideas about how we can modify it!

Thanks!
Jesse

Premise & Overview: This paper could proceed from the premise that Berkeley cannot revitalize its downtown without addressing head-on two key elements that are missing from the DAPAC Report: concerns over public safety and the presence of the homeless downtown. The fundamental message of the paper could be that any attempt to revitalize Berkeley’s downtown will not succeed unless the City seriously addresses homelessness in a way it has not yet done (for example, with a functional, enforceable, and constitutional ordinance). The paper would then redraft the Public Commons for Everyone Initiative Ordinance to craft more enforceable local policy that better reflects a respect for Berkeley citizens’ civil liberties.

Outline: The paper could begin with (1) an Introductory Statement situating this paper within the context of the DAPAC Plan. Then the paper could proceed with three descriptive “foundational” sections: (2) a section explaining how and why economic growth is inhibited both by (a) the presence of the homelessness, and (b) high crime rates; (3) a section compiling and analyzing crime rates and the presence of the homeless in Berkeley itself; and (4) how Berkeley has attempted to address homelessness downtown, both through the Public Commons for Everyone Initiative (PCEI) and through any other relevant legislation or policies. Then the paper would shift to (5) a critique of Berkeley’s policymaking on addressing homelessness issues, and (6) a proposal for how Berkeley should address homelessness, including a redrafted PCEI ordinance. In conclusion, (7) the paper could integrate our proposals back into the goals of the DAPAC Plan.

Structure:

Introductory Statement
Relationship Between Homelessness/Crime Rates to Economic Development

How The Presence of The Homeless Inhibits Economic Growth
How Crime Inhibits Economic Growth

Homelessness Rates & Crime Rates in Berkeley

How present are the homeless in Berkeley?
What are current crime rates downtown?
Is there a relationship between the presence of the homeless downtown and downtown crime rates?

Berkeley’s Attempts to Address Homelessness Downtown

The Public Commons for Everyone Initiative (PCEI)
Other Relevant Legislation or Policies

Why The PCEI Will Fail to Address Homelessness in Berkeley

Critiques of PCEI Ordinance: Unconstitutional / Bad Policy
Additional critiques of Berkeley policymaking

Proposed Solutions

A Redrafted PCEI Ordinance
Additional proposals re: legislation / enforcement

Conclusion

Over-Stuffing the Envelope: The Problems with Creative Transfer of Development Rights

2008-02-21T17:18:00.000-08:00

Transferable development rights (TDR) are transactions in which the owner of a small building or landmark severs, sells, and transfers his unused development rights to another parcel of land.[1]

TDR can be applied to landmark buildings to allow survival of cultural institutions.[2] TDR allows the landmark owner to realize the potential development value for his landmark by selling air rights or unused development rights to a purchaser who will gain additional floor area for development.[3] The arrangement allows the public to continue to enjoy historic buildings and sites and the city to receive new tax revenue.[4] However, critics are concerned about the potential for TDR to result in increased bulk on city blocks, the loss of light and air on the streets, congestion on public transportation, and strain on neighborhood services.[5]

The use of TDR in New York City has evolved since 1916 when the 1916 Zoning Ordinance first allowed adjacent lots to combine their air rights to erect a tower exceeding height regulations.[6] Over time, the City Planning Commission began to allow creative interpretations of zoning regulations for the benefit of non-profit institutions.[7] In 1968 the city allowed the owner of Grand Central Station, which was suffering economically because of the decline of the railroads, to transfer its development rights to locations further away than previously allowed, and to transfer all rights to one receiving lot (rather than limiting transfer to a 20% increase for the receiving lot).[8] The city also sought to promote redevelopment in the South Street Seaport area where landmark buildings were in a state of severe disrepair.[9] The city expanded the way TDR may be utilized by creating a district of transferor lots and receiving lots that allowed for transfer of rights to preserve historic structures and allow for new commercial development.[10]

Critics note that such creative interpretations of zoning regulations set precedent for future imaginative transactions.[11] These changes are made to achieve short-range financial objectives at the possible expense of the traditional urban planning objectives on which the zoning laws were based.[12] New York’s zoning goals include controlling population density, building, size, and land use[13]; maintaining property values; and preserving light and air on city streets through height, area, and public use regulations.[14] Critics of the creative use of TDR point to increased bulk in new development beyond that permitted by the original zoning laws, the risk of overdevelopment resulting in increased population density and use of neighborhood resources[15], the altered character of neighborhoods, and the marring of landmarks by the adjacent construction of large buildings.[16]

[1] Margaret Giordano, Over-Stuffing the Envelope: The Problems with Creative Transfer of Development Rights, 16 Fordham Urb. L.J. 43 (1987-88).
[2] Id. at 46.
[3] Id. at 55.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 46.
[6] Id. at 47.
[7] Id. at 57.
[8] Id. at 60.
[9] Id. at 61.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 65-66.
[12] Id. at 66.
[13] Id. at 47.
[14] Id. at 48.
[15] Id. at 55.
[16] Id. at 67.

Cody’s Books To Move Downtown, Close Fourth St. Store

2008-02-21T12:33:00.000-08:00

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/news/print.asp?id=24220
Cody's bookstore is venturing downtown from Fourth Street to the corner of Allston and Shattuck, where Eddie Bauer used to be. Cody's will apparently be an economic plus for the downtown area, according to Michael Caplan, Berkeley's economic development director.

In actuality, Cody's may bring some more business to the downtown area because of its reputation in West Berkeley and loyal clientele. Perhaps this may be a move upward for the downtown area. Let's hope so.

Quick Review of CEQA, from Guide to California Planning

2008-02-21T01:17:00.000-08:00

William Fulton & Paul Shigley, Guide to California Planning 155-79 (2005).

CEQA was enacted in 1970 to address some of California’s environmental protection needs. Since its enactment, it has probably become “the most hotly debated planning-related law in California.” We have heard many times about the effects of CEQA on Berkeley development, but we have not yet managed to include an introduction to the Act itself in our blog. I thought I would briefly do so here in list format for our quick reference.

PURPOSE
→ To unearth information about the likely environmental consequences of any “project”
→ To encourage debate by public and elected officials about those consequences

ROLE
CEQA does not function to:
→ Improve CA’s environment directly
→ Usurp local authority over land use decisions
→ Establish a state enforcement agency
→ Require a wholesale denial of harmful projects

CEQA does function to:
→ Inform decisionmakers about significant environmental effects
→ Identify ways environmental damage can be avoided
→ Prevent avoidable environmental damage
→ Disclose to the public why a project is approved even if it leads to environmental damage

PROCESS

→ Step 1. Is the action in question a “project” under CEQA?
o Ministerial Actions – Are not projects because their issuance does not involve any discretion
o Discretionary Actions - Generally, any discretionary action that involves the physical environment is a "project" and is subject to CEQA
o Exemptions:
§ Statutory exemptions – e.g., demolition permits, adoption of coastal and timberland plans, some mass transit projects, and certain types of small infill and affordable housing projects
§ Categorical (Resources Agency) exemptions – divided into around 32 categories – e.g., projects under 10,000 sq. ft., projects of three homes or fewer, projects resulting in “minor alterations on the land,” and transfer of land ownership to create parks

→ Step 2. If the action is a project and no exemption applies, local government planners will conduct an initial study of probable, significant environmental consequences
o No formal threshold for “significance,” though some “significant effects” are indicated in the Guidelines – e.g., projects that would (1) have a major impact on area aesthetics; (2) substantially diminish fish, wildlife, or plant life habitats; or (3) displace a large number of people
o Planners or consultants will use a “checklist” to assess environmental factors and speculate as to potential impacts
o If nothing is significant, a negative declaration is made so that no further review is needed; If something is significant but is mitigated/changed, a mitigated negative declaration is made and no further review is needed; otherwise, if there remains something significant, proceed to Step 3

→ Step 3. If consequences are likely significant, then an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared specifying the damage and ways of mitigating that damage
o Most often required for larger projects
o Frequently expensive and time-consuming; developer often carries the costs during this time, which may kill the project
o Additions/Supplements/New EIR may be required as the project changes or new information becomes available
o Types of EIRs:
§ Development-specific EIRs
§ General plan EIRs
§ Master EIRs and tiering

→ Step 4. Engage in public discussion based on the initial study and, if applicable, the EIR

→ Step 5. Local Government resolves the outcome
o There are no absolute requirements to reject harmful projects nor are there specifications for minimizing damage; however,
o Guidelines do indicate that an agency should not approve a project if there are feasible alternatives available that would substantially lessen any significant effects
o Resolution Options:
§ Deny the project
§ Approve an environmentally preferable alternative
§ Approve the project, but only if mitigation measures are adopted
§ Approve the project in spite of its effects

ENFORCEMENT
→ No state agency is empowered to enforce CEQA, though state attorney general may file lawsuits to force compliance
→ Primarily meant to be enforced by citizens through litigation; this has given rise to citizen groups threatening litigation to obtain leverage over planning and over individual development projects

COURT RULINGS ON CEQA
→ Court rulings fall into four general categories:
o Whether CEQA applies
o Whether an EIR should be prepared
o Whether the EIR is adequate
o Whether procedures were followed

Report and Recommendation for a Bus Rapid Transit System on the Berkeley-Oakland Corridor

2008-02-20T18:29:00.000-08:00

CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS, INC., AC TRANSIT BERKELEY/OAKLAND/SAN LEANDRO CORRIDOR MIS SUMMARY REPORT (2002).

In 2002, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., of Oakland, presented the results of a 2-year study commissioned by AC Transit regarding the feasibility of new or augmented transit options in the Berkeley-Oakland area. Currently, buses operating along the Berkeley/Oakland corridor carry 40,000 passengers a day, 20% of AC Transit’s total ridership. The report projects that ridership will increase to over 250,000 riders a day, of which roughly 115,000 would be better served by a new system than the current options available from BART and AC Transit.

The study was primarily concerned with improving access to the major employment and educational centers of downtown Berkeley and downtown Oakland, improving connectivity with other transit providers, improving reliability, and increasing ridership to reduce the percentage of transportation made via automobiles in the region. The study considered expanding the existing bus system, the creation of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, and the construction of a new Light Rail Transit (LRT) system. These options were evaluated considering factors including reliability, comfort, ridership, capital and operational costs, and impacts on traffic. The creation of a BRT system was found to best meet these considerations, although the report includes the caveat that a Light Rail system “should be considered as a long-term goal.”

The report, therefore, recommends the creation of a BRT system, running from the Berkeley BART station, down Telegraph Avenue to downtown Oakland, and continuing on to the Bay Fair BART station. The recommended system, which would be easily convertible to an LRT system at a later date, would include:
• Special transit lanes dedicated to BRT
• Traffic signal priority
• Frequent service, with busses running every 5 to 8 minutes
• Stations spaced at wide intervals of 1/3 to 1/2 mile
• Well-developed stations with shelters, boarding platforms, security, and fare machines
• Multi-door, low-emission busses.

Citing the importance that riders place on reliability and speed, the report concludes that a BRT or LRT system is preferable to expanding the existing bus system, as the dedicated lanes and traffic prioritization would ensure greater speed and increased reliability. While a BRT system would provide a 15 to 25% improvement in speed over an expansion of the existing system, the incremental improvement of an LRT system over the proposed BRT system would only be in the range of 2 to 10%. The corridor currently sees roughly 40,000 riders each day. A BRT system is projected to increase ridership to roughly 60,000 passengers per day, while an LRT system is projected to increase ridership to 66,000. Again, the adoption of either a BRT or LRT system would substantially increase use, but an LRT would show declining marginal increases when compared to a BRT system. The construction and operational costs associated with an LRT system, however, greatly surpass those of a BRT system, and the construction of an LRT would entail substantially longer delay until completion. The report, therefore, recommends the adoption of the BRT system rather than the LRT for the time being.

Sustainable Agriculture as Sustainable Development

2008-02-20T18:00:00.000-08:00

John Ling, Ferry Building Gets Preservation Award, San Francisco Chronicle (October 4, 2003).

Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture (CUESA), Sustainable Agriculture A-Z (available at http://www.ferryplazafarmersmarket.com/sustainable_ag/A-Z/index.php).

In the first group breakout discussions, my group and I discussed the idea of a weekly outdoor farmer’s market in downtown Berkeley. A farmers market would take into account all of the key elements of development desired in Berkeley: environmental sustainability, avoidance of cookie-cutter chain stores, and retail affordability, as farmers markets sell healthy food at relatively low costs. In this vein, I began researching the recently redeveloped Ferry Plaza Farmer’s Market in San Francisco.

The Ferry Plaza was considered a hugely successful development project on San Francisco’s waterfront, credited in part for helping to “bring up” the area around and below Market Street. The SF Ferry Plaza houses a wide variety of restaurants, wine bars, food-related retail and, of course, the ferry terminals. In addition, the structure of the Ferry Building itself is noteworthy; the building received an award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation in recognition of its status as a (preserved) historic landmark.

Most significantly, not only is the Ferry Plaza now home to the farmers market, it is also home to the Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture (CUESA), the entity which sponsors and manages the SF Ferry Plaza Farmers Market. CUESA addresses all aspects of sustainable development: from water use to soil building to labor rights. Something similar may appeal to Berkeleyans.

Berkeley Police Department / City Manager Reports to City Council

2008-02-20T15:10:00.000-08:00

Week Six Readings: Berkeley Police Department / City Manager Reports to City Council

Bluebook Citations:

Memorandum from Phil Kamlarz, City Manager, to Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council of the City of Berkeley of Feb. 12, 2008, re: Quarterly Report: Crime in Berkeley.

Memorandum from Phil Kamlarz, City Manager, to Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council of the City of Berkeley of Sept. 18, 2007, re: Quarterly Report: Crime in Berkeley.

Memorandum from Phil Kamlarz, City Manager, to Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council of the City of Berkeley of Mar. 13, 2006, re: Quarterly Report: Crime in Berkeley.

Memorandum from Phil Kamlarz, City Manager, to Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council of the City of Berkeley of Feb. 21, 2006, re: Quarterly Report: Crime in Berkeley.

Summary:

The City Council of the City of Berkeley requires the City Manager, Phil Kamlarz, to provide quarterly reports on crime rates in Berkeley to the Council. Although these reports are meant to be generated on a quarterly basis and shared at City Council meetings for discussion about crime prevention strategies, the reports seem to have been generated and made available online on a somewhat more sporadic basis. (I have only been able to locate two reports from spring 2006, one from fall 2007, and one from spring 2008). These reports are generated prior to City Council meetings so that the City Manager can present the findings to the Council at the meeting, the Council can discuss crime reduction strategies, and the Council can discuss the findings of the reports.

These reports reveal some interesting information about the way in which crime is committed, tabulated, and analyzed by the City of Berkeley.

First, the initial Feb. 21, 2006 report on 2005 crime rates in Berkeley includes three graphs charting concentrations of crime rates within the City of Berkeley itself – an extremely valuable resource given that it can be difficult to determine where different kinds of crime are concentrated within overall crime rates for the city (i.e., to what degree do City of Berkeley crime rates reflect crimes committed downtown?). These mapped charts demonstrate that violent crimes are strongly concentrated downtown and to the south of campus in the City of Berkeley, centered at Allston and Shattuck downtown and at Regent and Dwight to the south of campus. Property crimes are strongly concentrated downtown on Shattuck between Allston and Center Streets. Automobile burglaries, however, do occur downtown but are more frequently committed south of UC Berkeley’s campus along Dwight Street.

Second, the initial Feb. 21, 2006 report on 2005 crime rates in Berkeley also includes per capita comparison between the City of Berkeley and other cities nearby (Fremont; Oakland; Richmond; Hayward; Vallejo; Concord). That data demonstrates that Berkeley ranks third behind Oakland and Richmond in violent crimes per capita (Berkeley has 26.3 violent crimes per 10,000 people, while Oakland and Richmond each have over 60), but Berkeley has by far the highest rate of property crimes among all cities, at 379.1 property crimes per 10,000 people. These charts thus reflect that Berkeley’s crime rates for property crimes are the highest in Alameda County, and they are concentrated in downtown Berkeley, and that Berkeley’s violent crime rates are high and also concentrated downtown – although not as high as the rates in Oakland or Richmond.

Third, the most recent 2008 report on Berkeley crime rates includes some interesting commentary that Mayor Bates neglected to mention in his speech to the class. Mayor Bates cited Berkeley as having 210 full-time police officers; this 2008 report indicates that budget cuts and reduced grant funding have forced the Berkeley Police Department to reduce 203 sworn officers in 2001 to 186 sworn officers in 2008. The report notes that these budget reductions may prevent the police department from achieving further crime reduction goals.

Finally, I think it is notable that the City Council directs the Berkeley Police Department to report its crime rates and statistics through the City Manager, and that the Berkeley Police Department has the opportunity to communicate about its approach to law enforcement and its response to citywide planning. To me, this is all the more reason why I would like to know the question that went unanswered in Mayor Bates’ talk: whether and to what degree the Berkeley Police Department had a hand in creating the Public Commons for Everyone Initiative and redrafted ordinances.

Scandinavia to DAPAC: Low Is Beautiful

2008-02-20T14:58:00.000-08:00

Cities in Scandinavia such as Stockholm and Copenhagen have been around 800 to 950 years longer than Berkeley, but they have refused to build skyscrapers. These cities realized that when a city builds large structures, they overshadow the historic landmarks and compromise the city’s core.
In Berkeley, the mayor is pushing for approval of 16-story buildings. However, such structures would cost the citizens views of the Campanile, the city hall, the bay, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the hills.
Even though Stockholm does not have tall buildings, it still has accomplished the goal of density by constructing numerous five to seven story buildings. As a result, Scandinavia leads the world in promoting broad prosperity and bridging social inequality. Scandinavian countries routinely top international rankings of overall “quality of life” and residents’ self-reported happiness.
Berkeley’s 1990’s development plan had a similar plan of five to seven story buildings. No one appears to dislike this plan except for those that sit very high up—like in the mayor’s office, or top UC administrative offices, or the leafy Piedmont aeries where major developers tend to live.

Michael Katz, Scandinavia to DAPAC: Low Is Beautiful, Berkeley Daily Planet (Nov. 6, 2007) (available at http://www.berkeleydaily.org/article1.cfm?archiveDate=11-06-07&storyID=28397).

Environmental tradeoff between renovation and building new

2008-02-19T21:41:00.000-08:00

There was talk last week about the environmental tradeoffs between (1) renovating an existing building and (2) demolishing that building and constructing anew.

To determine which option would be better for the environment, one can apply data-modeling software sold by the Athena Institute. The data-modeling software, called the Environmental Impact Estimator (EIE), allows users to “assess the environmental implications of industrial, institutional, office, and residential building designs.”[1] The software, in making its assessment, takes into account the effects of manufacturing building products, actual building construction, and material maintenance and replacement over the building’s life.[2] The software also accounts for the energy and emission associated with building demolition and the transport to landfills of materials that would not currently be recycled or reused.[3] Generally, “the energy required to operate a building over its life greatly overshadows the energy attributed to the products used in its construction…[h]owever…effects such as toxic releases to water, effects during the resource extraction and manufacturing stages greatly outweigh any releases associated with building operations.”[4]

The EIE can be used to assess the environmental impact of either new construct or renovation.[5] Thus, a planner, in determining whether she should renovate an existing building or demolish and build new, can apply the EIE to assess the environmental impact of the two options. The two assessments can then be compared to determine whether renovation or new construction would be more environmentally friendly.[6]

In conclusion, one cannot make a simple statement that renovation is always preferable to new construction, or vice versa. Rather, a multi-factor approach is needed in order to make a decision.

[1] Wayne B. Trusty, Renovating vs. Building New: The Environmental Merits, Presentation at OECD/IEA Workshop on Sustainable Buildings, Tokyo, January 2004 at 3 (available at http://www.athenasmi.ca/publications/docs/OECD_paper.pdf).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 4.

[6] Id.

Transferable Development Rights, John Costonis, and his "Chicago Plan"

2008-02-19T17:05:00.000-08:00

One of the first major proponents of Transferable Development Rights plans was John Costonis, who published a number of articles in the early 1970s on the topic:

Costonis, The Chicago Plan, Incentive Zoning and The Preservation of Urban Landmarks, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 574
Costonis, Development Rights Transfer, An Exploratory Essay, 83 Yale L.J. 75

At that time in American history, particularly in urban America, the historical preservationist movement was just beginning. Penn Station in New York, once a beautiful structure designed by the renowned firm of McKim, Mead and White, had been demolished and replaced by a modern monstrosity. (As an aside, this lead to one of my favorite quotes of all time: “One once entered the city like a god; one scuttles in now like a rat” by Yale architect Vincent Scully). Urban areas around the country could not afford the cost of upkeep needed for architecturally significant buildings, and the city of Chicago was no exception.

Costonis proposed a TDR scheme to help alleviate some of these problems. At the time incentive zoning - which offered bonus density to developers in exchange for a public improvement – was widespread in Chicago. Costonis looked for a method to combine the granting of the bonus density with a mechanism to protect historic buildings. What developed was a trading scheme for density: developers looking for extra density would buy it from nearby historic buildings, providing them with two things they needed: permanent protection of the sight from additional building, and a cash flow to pay for the maintenance that these historic structures needed.

The first article above describes the challenges presented to urban landmarks at this time, then examines New York City’s TDR program for historic landmarks. Last, it examines some of the legal issues that TDR programs present. One thing that is interesting to note is the aftermath of this article. Costonis views NYC’s plan as having major deficiencies and develops his plan for Chicago in light of them. However, over the next few decades, NYC’s plan developed into a moderate success, resulting in the preservation of Grand Central Station and one of the foremost cases on TDRs (Penn Central v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104). Chicago, on the other had, failed to develop a TDR plan, in large part because of the political opposition that developed against the concept of transferable development rights.

Transferable Development Rights programs remain highly controversial in many regards, though there have been a number of successful ones around the country. Some of the controversy has been legal: both Penn Central and a later case, Suitam v. Tahoe Regional Planning Authority, failed to address the constitutionality of TDR programs and the question remains unresolved. Additional challenges result from programs that fail to develop adequate markets for development rights, decisions to make the program voluntary or mandatory, and a general distrust of plans that allow such flexibility and discretion. However, I happen to think they are a really interesting theoretical idea, and when they do work, they can ameliorate some of the inherent difficulties with land use planning. As a full disclosure, I wrote a term paper on TDR programs last year in a Land Use Law class.

Transferable Development Rights- Case Study

2008-02-19T16:58:00.000-08:00

This study addresses many of the basic concepts necessary to operate a transferable development rights (TDR) program. The feasibility of a TDR program is examined from legal, environmental, and economic perspectives. The study takes Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, as its case study.

The act of transferring development rights requires four elements:
1. Sending area(s) to be protected,
2. Receiving area(s) to be developed,
3. Transferable credits that symbolize and quantify the development rights being sold; and a
4. Procedure for carrying out the transaction.

The community must identify resources it seeks to protect and establish a sending area defined geographically to best protect those resources. Basically, a TDR program severs the right to develop a parcel from the land itself, but it leaves the landowner the other rights that came with the land, such as the right to exclude members of the public from the property. That land is then safeguarded with deed restrictions or conservation easements that secure the undeveloped state of the land in perpetuity.

The value of the development rights depends on how the community defines the sending and receiving areas and the credits. The local government can assign credits to each landowner in the sending area based on acreage, resource features on the parcel, or the value of an easement on the land. In some jurisdictions TDRs can be purchased to receive bonuses that have nothing to do with the size of the building; they can exempt the holder from any development requirement the city chooses, whether floor area ratio, height, parking, landscaping, or subdivision limits. For example, in Sunderland, Massachusetts, TDRs get exemptions from minimum lots size and frontage regulations.

Federal Law
There is authority under US Constitutional law and state law for local governments to create TDR ordinances. TDR programs were given federal approval by the Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City. In that case, involving New York City’s Landscape Preservation Law, the plaintiffs argued that denial of permission to use the air rights over Grand Central Station to build an office tower was a taking of their private property under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, despite the fact that they could transfer the air rights through a TDR program. The Court did not find that TDRs are necessarily “just compensation” for a taking, if one occurs; however, it did find the ordinance constitutional. It held that the TDRs mitigated the financial burden on the plaintiffs and must be considered when considering the impact of the regulation in determining whether a taking has occurred.

State Law
To meet state and local procedural requirements, if a TDR program is passed, the county or state zoning code may have to be amended to state the additional level of density that can be obtained through TDRs in each applicable zone. From a practical perspective, a key component of a successful TDR program is that TDRs are the only way to achieve increased density in the designated receiving zones. If county zoning bodies allow increases in density through other means, it will significantly diminish the motivation of developers to use the TDR program.

Historic Protection
The protection of historic landmarks is the third most common purpose of TDR programs in the US. Most TDR programs that focus on protecting historic areas are designed for large cities, including San Francisco.

Fiscal Impact
Overall, the program appears affordable. The program may actually result in a gain in property tax collections if implemented in Athens, GA. Even 20 years into a TDR program, the total property tax collection decrease due to the program would be less than 1% of the annual budget. This is before any offsetting due to increased tax collections on surrounding properties or additional development caused by the program.

Summary: Jayni Foley

Dorfman, et. al., The Feasibility of a Transferable Development Rights Program for Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, February 2, 2005, available at http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/service/tools/tdr/acc_tdr.pdf

Crossroads, First Ground-Up Green Homeless Shelter

2008-02-19T16:50:00.000-08:00

I came across an interesting January 28, 2008 New York Times article on what is believed to be the first ground-up green homeless shelter in the country. Crossroads is located in East Oakland; houses 125 residents; and is the result of the efforts of Wendy Jackson, executive director of the East Oakland Community Project. While Jackson faced resistance from those who insisted her idea of a green shelter went too far, she eventually succeeded in raising $11 million to finance the project.

Many homeless residents that spend time in shelters have a whole host of problems including asthma, HIV, and allergies, and a building that consists of a healthy, green space is a welcomed contrast to the dilapidated warehouses or aging churches in which many shelters are housed. In addition to the solar panels, this shelter employs such green technology as hydronic heating, ceiling fans, nontoxic paints, operable windows, and natural furniture that have health benefits in addition to benefits for the environment.

Crossroads represents a happy “intersection between environmental and social justice issues.” The intersection is one that may well be appealing to Berkeley policymakers as well as residents concerned about the seriousness of the homeless problem in Downtown Berkeley as well as finding ways to protect the environment in an urban setting. Provided that either public or private organizations can successfully raise the appropriate funds, shelters like Crossroads if built in Downtown Berkeley can effectively address safety, health, and environmental issues.

A Shelter Is Built Green, to Heal Inside and Out, New York Times, January 29, 2008 available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/28shelter.html.

2/14 Small Group Discussion on Paper Topics

2008-02-19T13:59:00.000-08:00

Our group was particularly interested in two potential topics: reducing crime and TDR’s.

The goal of the first topic would be to focus players on issues of crime (using economic data which shows declining crime rates and a corresponding increase in economic development). It is important that we seperate issues of homelessness and actual criminal acts. We would research the ordinances other communities have in place which have been upheld as Constitutional limits on loitering and panhandling, and then redraft the Berkeley statute so it wouldn’t be found to be void for vagueness. Also, we would like to examine community service models and programs to better connect those in need with resources to assist them.

In relation to TDR’s, our primary focus was on comparing the successful use of such programs in other cities and drawing corollaries to downtown Berkeley.

Group members: Alison, Matt, Jesse and Erin

Notes from 2/14 Criminalization of Homelessness discussion

2008-02-19T13:48:00.000-08:00

here are my notes from the criminalization of homelessness event last thursday. it was an engaging, thought provoking discussion that raised a number of issues potentially relevant to our project. so there is actually some good stuff in my notes, but if you find them to be lacking in coherence feel free to ask me a question and i'll try to clarify. also, i'm going to follow up on a number of the issues in additional posts that will be coming shortly.

A. Criminalization of homelessness in San Francisco:
1. citations targeted at the homeless
--- issued for things like sitting on the sidewalk or in a park, sleeping on the sidewalk or in a park; trespassing on public property; having an open container also big;
---the number of these citations has more than quadrupled in san fran
---the DA in the city has decided to prosecute all “homelessness” crimes; prior to this when these cases were heard in traffic court no attorneys were present for the state; the DA is now prosecuting the homelessness crimes, but continues to not prosecute other general traffic violations; the DA is not exercising discretion at all---not looking at probably cause etc--- but rather pushing for trial or guilty plea and not dismissing period
---media coverage: the Chronicle has been especially vocal about getting homeless off street and into criminal justice system
---people getting anxious with mayor—in four years he hasn’t delivered on promise to address homelessness
---major consequences for homeless people because they generally cant find representation: a few organizations are able to defend a small number of people, but most are on their own so they get convicted and have a warrant issued against them;
---POLICY POINT: this type of enforcement is a backdoor way to give people criminal records without representation; they don’t get a public defender for the citation and it affects their ability to get jobs, etc… down the road; thus it basically traps people in place instead of working to facilitate a solution;

2. property confiscation:
--- police threaten homeless to either leave or have their belongings taken and thrown away
---the city is supposed to have a policy of storing things so people can get them back but this hasn’t happened;

B. Criminalization of homelessness in Berkeley
---much of san fran discussion also applies to Berkeley;
---reputation of city is progressive, but nonetheless has very onerous policy regarding homelessness;
GOOD POINT: people in Berkeley are more radical/progressive the further detached from day to day reality the issues is; ie radical about war and torture, conservative about homelessness
---the Chronicle articles regarding homelessness are “practically yellow journalism against homeless people”
---GOOD POINT: separate homelessness from criminal activity/public indecency; there are already laws against actual crimes and unruly behavior like public urination but laws at issue target people who are just sitting on the sidewalk or in a park because they have no where else to go;
---berkeley city council passed resolution saying police of Berkeley should enforce all laws applicable against homeless: obstructing sidewalk, etc…
--- police as such are “garbage collectors” of Berkeley: role is to push people out of town, send them elsewhere;
---examples of osha’s clients:
---disabled woman in wheel chair, was in park sitting; cited for loitering under statute in Berkeley saying unlawful for people to loiter near park or school yard within certain distance of school children
---guy sitting on public sidewalk, cited for trespassing
---50 year old man asleep in doorway on Shattuck, cited for obstructing business entrance at 6am on Sunday morning
---62 year old woman in wheel chair and legally blind, a diabetic with arthritis cancer and schizophrenia, cited for trespassing for seeking shelter in empty door front on Shattuck;
---two women sitting on sidewalk leaning up against empty store front; cited for trespassing on public sidewalk; numerous complaints about trash, urination; but women were just sitting there;

C. Broader Policy considerations and other general thoughts from the discussion

---visibility of homelessness is especially disturbing to people; people don’t want to have to face realities of the system: problem is difficult to solve because society wants homeless to simply to go away but don’t want to care for them, provide necessary services

--- should the homeless be considered a “suspect class” under due process clause?
---they are an insular, segregated minority;
---ability to self-organize is very low; suffer from addiction, mental illness;

---in order to solve poverty the poor need to organize and develop a political voice---MLK envisioned a poor peoples march on Washington;
---[MY NOTE: see Kensington group in philly for example of homeless organization]

---EVENT: in march at Berkeley there will be a large conference on criminalization of poverty

---lack of housing/shelters is key issue: where do people go if not on street? If they cant go on the street, what options for people other than punishing them with the criminal justice system?

--- red hook community justice center:
---alternative to criminalization
---court is like a community center that connects people that come into system with resources needed to help them; judges investigate nature of problem; committed to needs of individual clients given the specific facts of a case; model also focuses more on more serious crimes than just homelessness

---there is more of a “street scene” in berkeley and san fran than in other places; more possible for homeless to find community

---The Jones decision—Los Angeles Case:
--- stated that it is cruel and unusual punishment to criminalize being homeless and on the street if people have no where else to go---thus major issue is lack of shelters;
---decision vacated pursuant to a settlement made by southern cali ACLU which brought suit;
---homeless advocates were upset with souther cali ACLU for agreeing to that settlement;
---although it cannot be cited as precedent it has persuasive effect that 8th amendment can apply to these homelessness cases
---can’t punish conduct or form of being that is involuntary; ie can’t punish someone for something that they cant help but be;

---Other important cases: pottinger; robinson v. cali; powell v. texas (plurality of sup. Ct says you cannot punish a chronic alcoholic for drinking in public; 4 dissenters plus one concurring [relied on in jones decision])

---Osha’s arg: cant enforce these homeless laws constitutionally unless people have other alternatives;

---one Alameda county innovation is the homeless caring court;
---a one shot opportunity for people working in a program to get out of homelessness to have old citations dismissed if they can persuade judge that they are on the path to self improvement;
---great, but does contribute to categorical distinction between worthy and unworthy poor

---No place to go to detox in Berkeley;

---the most effective organization for getting popele off streets in Berkeley is
homeless action center—gets people on SSI for example

Transfer Development Rights

2008-02-19T12:37:00.000-08:00

Following our discussion in class, I found some information about Transfer Development Rights (TDRs). TDRs are used to promote natural and open space areas while at the same time encouraging smart growth in developing areas of a community.

In a TDR program, a community identifies an area which it would like to protect from development (the sending zone) and another area in which the community would like more urban development (the receiving zone). Landowners in the sending zone are given a number of development credits that can be sold to individuals such as developers or sold to the community itself. The landowners in the sending zone who sell the credits agree to place a permanent conservation easement on their land. The purchaser of the development credits can apply them to develop at a higher density than would otherwise be allowed on property in the receiving zone. There are four main elements of a TDR that must exist in all successful programs: (1) a designated preservation zone (the sending area), (2) A designated growth area (the receiving area), (3) a pool of development rights that are legally severable from the land, and (4) a procedure by which development rights are transferred from one property to another.

The advantages TDR programs include use of the free market to create funding for protection of natural resources. Studies of TDR programs indicate that they are most effective in urban areas. Some of the disadvantages of these programs are that many people find them confusing and administratively complex. The programs require the government to make a commitment to administering the program and educating citizens and developers. There must be strong planning and local control in order for the TDR programs to be successful. In addition, the government must ensure that landowners have adequate incentives to sell development rights and that developers have adequate incentives to purchase these rights.

TDR programs have been successful in many areas. For example, in Montgomery Count, Maryland, a TDR program was established in 1980. By the end of the 1997 fiscal year, the program had protected 39,180 acres out of a total sending area of 89,000 acres. In the decade after the implementation of the TDR program, development dropped 92%. In the New Jersey Pinelands, a TDR program protected 5,300 acres of environmentally unique land over a period of 11 years.

Field Guide to Transfer of Development Rights

http://www.realtor.org/libweb.nsf/pages/fg804

Berkeley Host Program

2008-02-19T11:21:00.001-08:00

Some members of the class have brought up the fact that downtown
Berkeley doesn't seem to be very well patrolled by the police. Despite the
fact that there is a downtown "beat" the police presence there is minimal.
It has also been noted that despite more stringent laws about allowable
public behavior, little seems to have changed in enforcing unacceptable or
dangerous behavior downtown.
I did some research into what the city is doing to solve this problem
and found that the City has approved implementation of what it calls the
Public Commons for Everyone Initiative. The PCEI calls on police to cite
people for lying on the sidewalk, smoking and other quality-of-life
infractions and to initiate services helping people whose behavior as
exhibited in shopping areas is deemed inappropriate. It will cost about $1
million per year to fund this initiative.
$200,000 of that money will be earmarked towards the Berkeley Host
Program. This program involves placing people on the streets who would work
among street people, visitors, residents, police and social services
agencies to identify problems in the commercial districts of Telegraph Ave
and Downtown. These people are supposed to be Berkeley's "eyes and ears" in
addressing citizen concerns and will help with enforcing the new tougher
standards against "yelling, littering, camping, drunkenness, smoking,
urinating and sex on sidewalks and in parks." They will not be police; it
has been suggested that the City employ seniors or social workers to walk
around the city, identify problems, and direct people to services or call
the police if necessary.
This program seems most targeted at some of the things that currently
make Downtown Berkeley less attractive than it could be. The other
components of the PCEI include a centralized homeless intake system, a
transition age youth program, hygiene maintenance job training and placement
program, and permanent supportive housing intensive services.

Scherr, Judith, "City Council Considers Public Commons Services," The
Berkeley Daily Planet, Feb. 12, 2008,
http://www.berkeleydaily.org/article.cfm?issue=02-12-08&storyID=29203.

Oakley, Doug, "City to Ban Sleeping on Sidewalks," East Bay Daily News, Feb.
19, 2008, http://www.ebdailynews.com/article/2007-11-29-homeless.

Jones, Carolyn, "Berkeley: Council Oks crackdown for parks, sidewalks," The
San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 28, 2007,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/28/BAFTTK4BB.DTL.

Office of the City Manager, Berkeley, "Consent Calendar: Request for
Proposed Schedule," Feb. 12, 2008,
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_General/2008-02-1
2_Item_04_Formal_Bid_Solicitation_and_Request_for_Proposal_Scheduled_For_Pos
sible_Issuance_in_the_Next_30_Days.pdf.

Paper ideas

2008-02-19T10:58:00.001-08:00

Our group began by focusing on two main topics, CEQA litigation and
homelessness. We decided that while CEQA was an important topic both for
developers and those seeking to oppose development, it might be a hard paper
topic to tackle. We moved on to talking about homelessness and what can be
done to make downtown more attractive. We decided that it would be
interesting to research the number of shelters downtown and where they are
located to find out if at least some of the homeless presence could be due
to the fact that there isn't enough shelter room for those who want it. We
also thought that it might make sense to require developers or others who
want to relocate to downtown Berkeley to fund some of the cost of increasing
shelters and services, if that is indeed part of the problem.
We talked a lot about other ways in which downtown is currently not
drawing a lot of people and ways in which it might. It was suggested that
placing shopping near the BART may or may not actually draw shoppers there,
depending on how many options were available and what type of retail went in
there. We discussed how people might stop by a shop to pick something up on
their way home or to school, but that it still made sense to do big shopping
trips by car or to places where retail was less expensive. One idea we had
was of relocating the football stadium to the corner of Fulton and Bancroft,
which is currently being discussed. We think that this would draw a huge
number of people into downtown on football weekends and would concentrate
them there, instead of being spread out in the eastern part of Berkeley.
Once downtown, these people would go to bars and restaurants before and
after games. Also, that stadium would be much more accessible by BART,
enabling more people to get there by public transportation and requiring
fewer cars. We also discussed ways to incentivize public transportation,
such as running free shuttles and closing the streets leading to the stadium
to cars. Finally, we began talking about other uses the stadium could have,
such as for events and concerts. This could lead to a continued use of the
stadium and make downtown Berkeley more of a destination city.

Homeless, The Introduction

2008-02-18T14:01:00.000-08:00

http://www.enotes.com/homeless-article

The problem of homelessness in downtown Berkeley needs to be addressed in any plans for the city’s future. Currently, homelessness is making downtown Berkeley an area that many consider unsafe and unpleasant. Because homelessness impedes the rehabilitation of many urban areas, I did some research into what other cities have done to address the homeless problem.

Many cities are enacting stricter regulations on how homeless people panhandle and where they live. For example, in Orlando, Florida, anyone wishing to panhandle on the streets must wear a laminated panhandling permit issued by the police department. Also, panhandlers are restricted from certain areas such as bus depots, train stations, public parks, and sports arenas. They also cannot approach people at ATMs or in vehicles or come within three feet of the person solicited. They can’t use obscenities, follow people, or work in pairs. Panhandlers may not make false representations such as pretending to be disabled. Many other detailed guidelines and restrictions on panhandling are set forth in the article. Homeless people who panhandle without an official permit or who do not comply with the rules may be required to pay hefty fines of up to $500 or be arrested and spend up to 60 days in jail.

Also, New York City applies legal sanctions to homeless people who live on the streets. The homeless are forbidden from sleeping in public parks. The city also tickets “squeegee terrorists” or people who wash car windows without solicitation by the owner in hopes of receiving a handout.

Chicago recently erected giant chain-link fences around a downtown area to prevent vagrants from loitering there. In Cleveland, homeless people who sleep on sidewalks are subject to arrest. Closer to home in San Francisco, the homeless are forbidden from camping in parks or sleeping in doorways. Also, San Francisco has enacted a law that arrests people who give food to the homeless without a permit.

Proponents of measures to crack down on homelessness argue that the homeless are a public nuisance whose presence on the streets harms businesses, impedes the rehabilitation of dilapidated urban areas, and makes life unpleasant and even unsafe for other citizens. Furthermore, the new ordinances force homeless individuals to seek the assistance they need such as alcohol or drug treatment, mental health care, or employment services.

Advocates for the homeless, on the other hand, argue that such laws rob homeless people of their civil rights and their dignity. They argue that these laws are punishing people for being poor and are seeking to hide the homeless problem rather than end it.

Regardless of any individual views on homelessness, the numbers of homeless people are rising despite widespread prosperity. A 2000 study by the Urban Institute reports that as many as 3.5 million people are homeless compared to 1.8 million in 1987. The homeless problem is one that will be in the limelight for many years to come.

ABCs of Affordable Housing Development

2008-02-18T10:44:00.000-08:00

Josh Mukhopadhyay

Background:

By new we’ve had two group discussion sessions focused on topic development. Several groups mentioned the need to make sure the DAP has a more concrete affordable housing generation component, either explicitly or as tied into a related topic like the homelessness/public safety/civil liberties morass. So here is a quick primer on affordable housing development and finance. I’ll focus on the unique aspects of the issue, ignoring blanket provisions like CEQA. I should note that even general environmental statues make certain nods to affordable housing; CEQA for instance has a (narrowly tailored) infill housing exemption into which low-income projects can be made to fit.

Summary:

California cities are required to periodically adopt general plans to lay out land use development guidelines. The general plan must include several elements, including a housing element (HE). The HE requirement is designed to ensure that a jurisdiction is working to meet its ‘fair share’ of current and projected regional housing need, with particular attention to housing for moderate, low, and very low income persons. Though rarely enforced, there is the potential for stiff penalties should a city’s HE be inadequate. Their entire general plan may be declared deemed inadequate and the city would in that case lose its ability to make land use decisions, essentially causing all development to stop.

Berkeley’s HE was last updated in 2003 and as of 2006 the city was considered to be in compliance by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). A compliant HE is one that has followed all the statutory requirements for measuring need and identifying potential affordable sites – the law is mostly procedural much like CEQA. Whether that construction actually materializes is part of the HE review process, which for Berkeley comes due in 2008 and 2009. Outside interest groups can oversee and influence the review process and also challenge HEs they consider inadequate despite HCD’s endorsement. Cities are given their ‘fair share’ requirements based on population growth projections made by the State Department of Finance (DOF). DOF then hands the projection to the regional governmental body, in our case the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG then comes up with a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for its constituent cities and unincorporated county areas. For Berkeley the RHNA is as follows: 328 Very Low, 424 Low, 549 Moderate, 1130 Above Moderate, for a total of 2431 new units. The timeline for meeting this requirement is unclear.

When the time comes to actually build affordable housing, ideally on those sites already designated by the municipality’s general plan HE, federal, state, and local financing levers must be pulled. There are nine main types of funding available for affordable housing:

(1) Fee Waivers

(2) Housing Trusts

(3) Land Donation/Landbanking

(4) Local Tax Revenues

(5) Mortgage Credit Certificates

(6) Municipal Bonds

(7) Private Financing

(8) Redevelopment Financing

(9) Low-Income Housing Tax Credits

If we choose to further pursue this topic for our class report, there are plenty of development plans freely available from various non-profit developers.

Sources:

Blueprint 2001, Housing Element Ideas and Solutions for a Sustainable and Affordable Future, Association of Bay Area Governments (2001).

Revised Technical Documentation for Regional Housing Needs Allocation Method, Association of Bay Area Governments (Aug. 2007), available at http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdfs/RHNA_Allocations_and_Technical_Document.pdf.

State of Housing Elements in California, California Department of Housing and Community Development (2006), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/plan/he/2006hestatus.pdf.

Paper Topics, Take Two

2008-02-14T22:50:00.000-08:00

Group members: Sara, Megan, Robert, Jayni, Josh

1) Next Steps for the DAP

What is the debate here? DAPAC is done with the DAP.
But there are 3 more hurdles - Planning Commission, City Council, UC. Each will have opportunities to tweak or kill.
Starting with the planning commission review implementation specifics - changing the zoning and similar devices - will need to be added to the DAP.

2) Explicit environmental law analysis of the DAP

How would the CEQA analysis look?
Think about AB32 and how the upcoming EIR will need to address climate change impacts.

Renovating old buildings versus building new ones
Density's impact on vehicle miles traveled

Examine reforming the historic structure designation process

Easier to delist
Harder to list
Periodic status review

3) Safety and homelessness issues

Planners are thinking on a 50-100 year time frame
Planners avoid 'planning in fear'
But safety concerns are being ignored and are the short term prerequisite to any lasting development
EBCLC has serious concerns regarding the new public commons initiative

4) Transferable development rights and height/density

Role of TDRs in the DAP

Owners of historic buildings transfer their rights to make uneconomical 6 story projects to economical heights

How the DAP treated height/density and the nature of DAPAC resistance
Public education to reduce opposition to density
Hotel/museum central role in the plan
Rent differentials between Downtown Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Solano, Rockridge, Telegraph, 4th Street
Fixing the Berkeley landlord oligopoly

Economic Development and Crime

2008-02-14T14:09:00.000-08:00

Bluebook Citations:

Jesse McKinley, “Where Marines are Called ‘Intruders’ and Recruiting Office is Unwelcome,” The New York Times (Feb. 12, 2008), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/12berkeley.html?scp=1&sq=berkeley&st=nyt (last visited Feb. 13, 2008).

Gary Becker, “Crime and Economic Development,” The Becker-Posner Blog: A Blog by Gary Becker and Richard Posner (May 6, 2007), available at http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2007/05/crime_and_econo.html (last visited Feb. 13, 2008).

David R. Bowes, “Crime as an Obstacle to Revitalization: A Two-Stage Model of the Simultaneous Relationship Between Retail Development and Crime,” Economic Development Quarterly (2007), available at http://edq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/21/1/79 (last visited Feb. 13, 2008).

Summary:

I have two brief capsule summaries of articles I came across this week that I thought would be helpful for us once we begin writing: the first is a New York Times article, on the recent controversy over the Berkeley City Council’s treatment of its marine recruitment office, and the second two are treatments of the relationship between crime and economic development.

Berkeley City Council v. Marine Recruitment Office

This article notes that the Berkeley City Council expressed its community’s values recently by undertaking two actions in relation to the Marine recruitment office downtown: first, it issued a proclamation that the Marines were “uninvited and unwelcome intruders,” and second, it set aside a parking spot outside of the Marine recruitment station one day a week for Code Pink, an antiwar activist organization. State and federal politicians threatened to withdraw state and federal funding from the City of Berkeley for programs such as school lunches and transportation. On Tues., Feb. 12, the City of Berkeley backed off of its proclamation against the Marines in order to appease those who objected to the City Council’s actions.

Although this article is, of course, not directly related to our project in the workshop in terms of its subject matter, I think it may be useful for reflecting several key details. First, the Berkeley City Council operates to express and represent a particular left-wing political sentiment, and that it is that sentiment in part that seems to drive its operation of day-to-day operations of the city such as the allocation of parking spots. Second, it suggests that in the face of a threat to its financial livelihood, the Berkeley City Council is willing to capitulate and bow to economic pressure. This seems particularly interesting given that development plans may pit some Berkeley values against potential economic growth for the city.

Crime and Economic Development

I also went searching for information comparing crime rates with the rates of business and economic development in cities and counties. It seems intuitive to me that rising crime rates and rising rates of homelessness would correspondingly inhibit the growth of local businesses and the local economy in general. Businesses might have higher up-front overhead in ensuring the security of the company, and high crime rates might prevent visitors from coming to retail shops. In addition, businesses would need to factor in the financial risk of entering a neighborhood that may contain other failing businesses upon which a store hopes to rely for shared customers. (The counterargument seems to me to be that it is the poor local economy that triggers the high crime rates, depriving citizens of jobs, and thus that as soon as the economy is stimulated the crime rates will disappear, and not before.)

To that end, I came across an interesting posting by Prof. Becker at The Becker-Posner Blog on Crime & Economic Development. Becker writes that “[h]igh crime rates directly raise the cost of doing business,” both because of the expense of “employ[ing] hundreds of security personnel” to protect “families and high-level employees,” and because people tend to drive in the face of high crime rates so that they can protect themselves from being vulnerable on foot. As a result, business increase from pedestrian access is correspondingly reduced.

Without writing at length about the economic theories that explain the relationship between crime rates and economic development, I did locate one fuller theoretical and empirical study by David Bowes which bears out Prof. Becker’s theory to a fair degree. Essentially Bowes concludes that retail economic development downtown is inhibited by violent crimes – and thus that development strategies hinge upon reduction of violent crimes:

“[R]etail development attracts primarily property crime but is repelled by violent crime. Thus, what may be discouraging retail development is not higher costs associated with loss from theft or increased insurance rates but loss of potential customers who are reluctant to go into areas characterized by high concentrations of violent crime. The fear of crime-ridden neighborhoods repels potential customers and, therefore, makes the area unattractive for retail development. Public policy strategies meant to encourage retail development in a particular part of the city such as downtown need to include efforts to reduce crime. Without sufficient efforts in crime reduction, other development strategies may not work as effectively, limiting the pace and extent of development. Programs intended to reduce crime may bring customers back to central city retail locations. Current examples of these types of public policy initiatives include video cameras posted in high-crime areas, which are intended to help deter crime and improve the public’s perceptions of an area’s safety.” (p. 88)

Downtown Berkeley Market Retail Study

2008-02-13T21:52:00.000-08:00

Prepared for the Downtown Berkeley Association, the report determines what combination of factors would best to improve of vitality of retail businesses in Downtown Berkeley. The report’s key findings are:

1) The current boundaries of Downtown Berkeley are too large to define as one area. By identifying sub-areas within the downtown, retail strategies can be tailed to deal with the unique retail challenges of each smaller area.
2) Shattuck Avenue is not the only pedestrian spine for retail activity. The width of the street and level of traffic does not make it an ideal pedestrian environment on every block. The narrow side streets perpendicular to Shattuck Avenue would provide a much better retail environment.
3) Perpendicular streets will play a key role in future retail activity—in particular Addison, Center, Allston, all which connect the downtown to UC Berkeley.
4) Downtown Berkeley’s lack of a comprehensive parking program results in the public’s lack of awareness to the extent and availability of parking.
5) Downtown Berkeley retail serves a diverse market of visitors, Berkeley residents, UC Berkeley and Berkeley High School students, and art performance attendees. There is not enough buying power from the peripheral residential uses to support the neighborhood serving uses in downtown.
6) Overall sales tax revenue is decline in Downtown Berkeley, while sales tax revenue from restaurants is increasing.
7) Office uses create a significant amount of sales tax revenue through business to business sales.
8) Permits and city regulations are barriers of entry to prospect Downtown retailers.

Following these findings, here are some of the report’s key recommendations (see report for all recommendations):

1) Strengthen synergies that already exist in downtown
2) Focus resources in three main sub-areas
3) Develop a comprehensive parking strategy
4) Provide clean and safe streets
5) Encourage new cultural uses and UC Berkeley cultural facilities in the downtown to strength downtown Berkeley’s position as a regional destination
6) Support non-UC Berkeley office uses in downtown
7) Support the physical connection between the UC Berkeley Campus and Downtown Berkeley by leveraging UC Investment
8) Consider subsidizing the rent of unique stores that are highly desirable to have in the downtown . . .

Downtown Berkeley Association and Strategic Economics, “Downtown Berkeley Retail Market Study” (July 11 2007), available at www.downtownberkeley.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=30 (last visited February 2008).

Hayes Valley Redevelopment

2008-02-13T16:18:00.000-08:00

Two of the guests to our class (Patrick Kennedy and Will Travis) mentioned the Hayes Valley area of San Francisco as a potential model for development in the Berkeley Area. The comparison is an interesting one, as Hayes Valley certainly faced its problems, not too long ago. Now, the area has been revitalized into a place that I’m rather fond of, and I wondered how this transformation happened.

First, a little background: The Hayes Valley areas is bounded by Van Ness to the east and Fillmore to the west, Oak to the south and Fulton to the north, with Hayes cutting through the middle. It is the former site of the central freeway, which was torn down following the 1989 earthquake. More recently, the off-ramp for Highway 101 has been extensively re-done, with a large green space running down Octavia St. This space looks very similar, at least on paper, to the South Park that we saw proposed last night.

According to U.S. Census figures, the area has some demographics figures that are similar to what a future downtown Berkeley might look like:

Median Age: 38.2[1] (Berkeley has a median age of 33.4[2], but given a potential desire to have older people coming to live downtown, we might see a “graying” of this number)
Renter Occupied Units: 94.8% (This number is quite high, and different from Berkeley as a whole (57.3% renter occupied), but if the proposals for renter-only apartments in the downtown area are successful, the Downtown Berkeley’s figure might come closer to this)
Median Income: Between 50-70k per year. (Berkeley comes in at around $51,000 currently).

A number of physical changes in Hayes Valley has spurred some of the recent development. First, the Davies Symphony Hall opened, bringing upper-class consumers in search of a tasty meal before their show. Bounded by the Tenderloin and the Civic Center on the other side, Symphony Hall guests brought their spending money into a concentrated area. Second, after the freeway came down, the two sides were “reunited.”

As the Berkeley downtown develops, they might learn some lessons from Hayes Valley. First, the height limits imposed by zoning are similar – between 65 and 85 ft. The redevelopment didn’t require the 20 floor buildings that Patrick Kennedy and others have suggested for downtown Berkeley.

Additionally, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a change to the city planning code that would ban all chain stores in a four-block area of Hayes Valley.[3] This is the strongest language against chain stores in the entire SF planning code, though other areas, such as Cole Valley and Union Square, have anti-chain store ordinances.

Last, Hayes Valley has encouraged a significant number of new residential units, particularly along the Octavia St. Corridor. In partnership with the Redevelopment Authority, this has brought new residences for a variety of income levels into this part of the city.

[1] http://sanfrancisco.about.com/od/neighborhoodprofiles/p/profilehv.htm

[2] http://bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/Berkeley.htm

[3] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/28/BAGQE5SL3K1.DTL

Parking Management and Downtown Land Development: The Case of Downtown Berkeley, CA

2008-02-13T02:08:00.000-08:00

This paper presents findings from a study of land use, parking, mode choice, and housing and jobs development in downtown Berkeley, CA, a medium-sized city with four decades of experience with parking management and transit-oriented development. The paper sheds light on the multiple roles that parking management, including reduced parking requirements and parking pricing, can play in a downtown area. It also illustrates the performance of transit-oriented development in smaller cities.
Berkeley's long support of high quality transit, restricted parking, and walking and biking facilities has resulted in transit, walk, and bike usage far higher than US averages. These high mode shares are found among residents, workers, and shoppers. Nevertheless, traffic is heavy, parking is full, and concerns about the parking and traffic impacts of infill development persist.
The surveys of downtown shoppers, workers, and residents and the study of parking occupancy and turnover show that infill projects perform well in terms of traffic, transit use, and economic development, and justify the low parking requirements that the city has adopted for such developments.
Parking shortages are caused in large part by overtime parking, facilitated by broken meters and by meter feeding by employees; the effective supply of on-street parking could be increased through better enforcement. Enforcement, in turn, would divert some street parkers to garages and others to less expensive walk, bike and transit modes.

Elizabeth Deakin et al., Parking Management and Downtown Land Development: The Case of Downtown Berkeley, CA, Univ. of Cal. (2004), available at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_(new_site_map_walk-through)/Level_3_-_General/TRB2004-003099.pdf.

Place: West Berkeley builds community

2008-02-13T00:54:00.000-08:00

John King, Place: West Berkeley builds community, February 12, 2008, S.F. Chron., at E-1.

Matt Taecker, in his presentation on Tuesday, February 12th, reiterated that college students and individuals qualifying for affordable housing are expected to occupy a significant portion of the proposed additions to Downtown Berkeley housing. Taecker’s comments prompted concern about whether Downtown Berkeley can obtain the critical mass of high-end retail necessary to make it a desirable place to shop and live for other demographics (as compared to nearby areas such as North Berkeley or Rockridge).

This SF Chronicle article introduces “Potter Creek” in West Berkeley—yet another neighborhood in the East Bay that stands in competition with Downtown Berkeley. This area’s mixed-use composition primarily consists of: (1) “Activspace,” a three-story structure which makes available 200 small commercial spaces to a variety of tenants (e.g., jewelry makers, floral designers, filmmakers), (2) crafts-oriented storefronts and a café, (3) modern-looking residential lofts, and (4) houses undergoing renovation.

According to the article:

“This sort of weave dazzles urban planners who tout the virtues of mixed-use neighborhoods. But it doesn't come from zoning codes or local officials. It happens in large part by chance: A variety of people and services not only want to be here, they're willing to let their neighbors take chances.”

Abrams/Millikan, as with the 4th Street project, is among the key players in the Potter Creek development. And like 4th Street, “there's a procession of buildings - contemporary and strong, relaxed and at home.”

Parking Management Strategies

2008-02-12T22:02:00.001-08:00

Todd Litman, "Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning,"
Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Aug. 2007.

This report summarizes and evaluates various strategies for managing parking
with the goals of maximizing space use, optimizing payment for parking, and
encouraging alternate forms of transportation. If Downtown Berkeley is to
overcome its reputation for having a terrible parking problem, it could
definitely utilize many of these strategies to provide economic, social, and
environmental benefits while making parking more accessible to visitors and
residents.

Ten Parking Management Principles:
1. Consumer choice: people should have viable parking and travel options.
2. User information: motorists should have information on their parking and travel options.
3. Sharing: parking facilities should serve multiple users and destinations.
4. Efficient utilization: parking facilities should be sized and managed so spaces are frequently occupied.
5. Flexibility: parking plans should accommodate uncertainty and change.
6. Prioritization: the most desirable spaces should be managed to favor higher-priority uses.
7. Pricing: as much as possible, users should pay directly for the parking facilities they use.
8. Peak management: special efforts should be made to deal with peak-demand.
9. Quality vs. quantity: parking facility quality should be considered as important as quantity, including aesthetics, security, accessibility and user information.
10. Comprehensive analysis: all significant costs and benefits should be considered in parking planning.

Parking Management Benefits:
-Facility cost savings. Reduces costs to governments, businesses, developers and consumers.
-Improved quality of service. Many strategies improve user quality of service by providing better information, increasing consumer options, reducing congestion and creating more attractive facilities.
-More flexible facility location and design. Parking management gives architects, designers and planners more ways to address parking requirements.
-Revenue generation. Some management strategies generate revenues that can fund parking facilities, transportation improvements, or other important projects.
-Reduces land consumption. Parking management can reduce land requirements and so helps to preserve greenspace and other valuable ecological, historic and cultural resources.
-Supports mobility management. Parking management is an important component of efforts to encourage more efficient transportation patterns, which helps reduce problems such as traffic congestion, roadway costs, pollution emissions, energy consumption and traffic accidents.
-Supports Smart Growth. Parking management helps create more accessible and efficient land use patterns, and support other land use planning objectives.
-Improved walkability. By allowing more clustered development and buildings located closer to sidewalks and streets, parking management helps create more walkable communities.
-Supports transit. Parking management supports transit oriented development and transit use.
-Reduced stormwater management costs, water pollution and heat island effects. Parking management can reduce total pavement area and incorporate design features such as landscaping and shading that reduce stormwater flow, water pollution and solar heat gain.
-Supports equity objectives. Management strategies can reduce the need for parking subsidies, improve travel options for non-drivers, provide financial savings to lower-income households, and increase housing affordability.
-More livable communities. Parking management can help create more attractive and efficient urban environments by reducing total paved areas, allowing more flexible building design, increasing walkability and improving parking facility design.

Parking Management Strategies:
-Shared Parking: the parking facility serves multiple users or destinations. This is most successful if destinations have different peak periods, or if they share patrons so motorists park at one facility and walk to multiple destinations. Parking facilities can be shared in several ways.
-Shared rather than reserved spaces
-share parking among destinations
-public parking facilities
-in lieu fees
-special parking assessments
-Parking Regulation: controls who, when and how long vehicles may park at a particular location, in order to prioritize parking facility use.

-More accurate and flexible standards: parking requirements at a particular location are adjusted to account for factors that affect them.

-Parking Maximums: an upper limit is placed on parking supply, either atindividual sites or in an area. Area-wide limits are called Parking Caps. These can be in addition to or instead of minimum parking requirements. Excessive parking supply can also be discouraged by reducing public parking supplies, imposing a special parking tax, and by enforcing regulations that limit temporary parking facilities. Maximums often apply only to certain types of parking, such as long-term, single-use, free, or surface parking, depending on planning objectives.

-Remote Parking (also called Satellite Parking): refers to the use of off-site parking facilities. This often involves shared facilities, such as office workers parking at a restaurant parking lot during the day, in exchange for restaurant employees using the office parking lot evenings and weekends.

-Walking and Cycling Improvements

-Increase Capacity of existing parking structures

-Mobility Management: a general term for strategies that increase transportation system efficiency by changing travel behavior.

-Parking Pricing: motorists pay directly for using parking facilities.

-Improve Parking Pricing methods.

-Financial Incentives: offer financial benefits for reducing automobile trips.

-Unbundle Parking: parking is rented or sold separately, rather than automatically included with building space.

-Parking Tax Reform

-Bicycle Parking and Changing Facilities

-Improve User Information and Marketing

-Improve Enforcement and Control

-Transportation Management Associations and Parking Brokerage

-Overflow Parking Plans

-Address Spillover Problems

-Improve Parking Facility Design and Operation

Some humor from the Onion...

2008-02-12T21:01:00.000-08:00

Not my official post for the week, but in light of the pocket parks we saw tonight, I think you might get a kick out of it.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/3_by_4_plot_of_green_space

Relationship between lighting and crime

2008-02-12T20:48:00.000-08:00

Improved street lighting has been suggested as a measure that would both (1) increase the risks of detection of crimes and (2) reduce fear.[1] These suggestions are based on the assumption that crime is normally a covert activity and that offenders will assess the risk of being seen when deciding whether to commit a crime.[2] Hence, some argue that improved lighting will encourage increase the chances of being seen and therefore act as a deterrent against crime.[3]

Atkins and his co-authors, however, conclude that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that improved street lighting reduces reported crime.[4] On the bright side, Atkins et al. also assess the response of residents to improved street lighting. They find that the attitudes, opinions and behavior of residents in a re-lit area did change.[5] Specifically, there is clear evidence that perceived safety by women when walking alone after dark had been improved in the treated area.[6] Perceptions of safety in the home, or in the street during daylight hours, were not affected.[7]

In addition, there was no evidence to suggest any significant changes in un-reported crime; in travel, particularly trips out after dark; on harassments or incivilities.[8] However, the reaction of residents to the re-lighting scheme was overwhelmingly favorable; and it is without doubt a popular measure.[9]

[1] Atkins S., S. Husain and A. Storey, The Influence of Street Lighting on Crime and Fear of Crime, Crime Prevention Unit Paper #28, 1991 at 2.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id. at 20.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

Important Elements and Paper Topics

2008-02-12T16:56:00.000-08:00

What are elements that are important to us? Be specific.

Safe, at night and for all people.

Additional lighting
Additional Police Presence

Are there foot patrols? There should be.

Control behavior, but address the homelessness in a humane way.

Changing the shape/dimension of Shattuck

Creating a pedestrian Promenade
Making wider sidewalks to allow sidewalk cafes
Trying to bring the two sides of the street together more
Providing areas for all uses – bikes, buses, cars, pedestrians, etc.

Reasons to go to downtown:

Nicer movie theaters
Shops – higher end, clothing stores, not necessarily chain
Farmer’s Markets – expanding them?

Advertising the parking more
Hotel – yes!

With Bar/Restaurant
Figuring out a way to reroute buses around it

Day-lighting the creek – no!

However, we aren’t opposed to water features – it just seems like this idea wouldn’t have any environmental benefit, for a really big cost

More liquor licenses

There should be more bars, particularly higher end ones that serve liquor

More Cabs, especially in areas outside of the center street area
Less historic designation

Less power in the LPC – allow some rebuilding but protect legitimate historical interests.

Youth center, etc.: there needs to be something for high schoolers to do in the downtown area that doesn’t create conflicts with other users.

What should we write about? (Values to consider: Must be relevant to our constituents. Must be something that can express ourselves at our best – preferably some law)

Jesse’s comments on PCE à legal questions?
Zoning Issues:

Arts district
Liquor license
Historical Designation
Anti-chain limits
Inclusionary Housing

Process issues

Streamlining – fewer commissions
Restructuring electoral process to make general council members
Creating incentives to develop, create affordable housing, etc.

Comparison? (This one I was thinking about after class, so it’s just my idea and not necessarily that of my group)

Lots of our guests have said what they want downtown to be like (Hayes Valley, Soho, Cambridge, MA, etc.)
Could we compare the zoning and legal issues to see if there are any major differences?

Green Development in San Francisco

2008-02-12T15:09:00.000-08:00

John King, A Beautiful Green Building for Embarcadero, San Francisco Chronicle February 4, 2008 (available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/BA57UPQVF.DTL).

Turner Construction Company, Turner Construction Company Nears Topping Out on 555 Mission Street Project, Reuters, December 4, 2007
(available at http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS196681+04-Dec-2007+PRN20071204).

These articles highlight two planned developments in downtown San Francisco, the first on the Embarcadero and the second on Mission in the middle of the Financial District; both are “green” developments.

The first article describes an exciting new structure being built on the Embarcadero, adjacent to the historic structure housing high-end restaurant Boulevard. The most notable feature of the planned structure is the mix of vines which will climb the surface of the building. The vines serve the dual purpose of symbolizing environmental consciousness and stability, as well as helping to cool the exterior of the building and reduce energy usage.

Most interestingly, the article’s author has a somewhat varied opinion of the development overall. Although optimistic, he concludes his piece with a criticism of the developer’s decision to build an apparently whopping ten stories when the majority of the surrounding buildings are shorter. This perspective struck me as somewhat out of context with the rest of the piece.

The second article, actually a publication of a press release of the project’s construction company, is also optimistic (probably due to its source). It describes another structure being developed in San Francisco’s downtown. According to the press release, the building’s claim to green fame is based on a recycled water distribution system; a reflective roof; a 20% goal of recycled content in products used in construction; water efficient landscaping; and low-flow toilet fixtures and fittings. Notably, the developers did not actually seek or plan to seek LEED certification before getting approval for the development and beginning construction, but instead decided on the eco-friendly features after breaking ground. I find this order of events interesting as presumably they could have used the certification to more easily convince the City to approve the project.

homelessness event at boalt 2/14

2008-02-12T12:46:00.000-08:00

hey everyone, see below. you may have already heard about this, but if not it should be a great opportunity to discuss some of the homelessness issues that have come up in class. i know osha pretty well and he's an absolute expert on homelessness in berkeley.
--------------

When: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14
Time: 12:40pm-1:30pm
Where: ROOM 122
Lunch will be provided

Criminalization of Homelessness:
What are the effects of current policies and regulations being put into force in the
Bay Area targeting homeless and punishing their homeless status?

Osha Neumann, attorney at the East Bay Community Law Center and long time Homeless
Rights advocate, and Elisa Della-Piana, attorney at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights of San Fransisco and Boalt alum, will explain what these new local policies
are. They will, further, discuss how their homeless clients are being severely
impacted by these increasingly punishing regulations.

Additionally, each attorney will address how their legal projects within their
respective organizations are responding to these policies and are attempting to
mitigate the impact.

This event is sponsored by East Bay Community Law Center Student Steering Committee.
For more information, please contact Inna Parizher innap@berkeley.edu

Thank you! We look forward to seeing you there.

Downtown Berkeley Neighborhood Description

2008-02-11T19:54:00.000-08:00

The SF Chronicle, Bay Area Traveler, has an online article series on East Bay Neighborhoods. The article on “Downtown Berkeley” provides a timely outlook on what downtown Berkeley currently features. Downtown Berkeley is apparently, where “North Berkeley money, South Berkeley strugglers and Telegraph Avenue youth meet in a whirlpool of commerce, culture, and craziness.” Downtown Berkeley is then described with the following imagery: “empty storefronts and chain stores,” “several Tibetan, Indian and Southeast Asian shops and eateries,” “several buildings . . . of the 20^th century,” and “former hotels from a time when only four or five stories were needed to scrape the sky.” The article then goes on to feature “Berkeley’s justifiably famous arts district” comprised of three theaters, a jazz school, Brazilian capoeira club, and plenty of movie theaters. Center Street is described as a “café society” where people congregate at the chic restaurants, chain food, and coffee outlets. The article ends with the note “If you can’t find something to watch, eat or buy in downtown Berkeley, cal the doctors because you don’t have a pulse.” Although the article is currently posted on www.sfgate.com, note that it was last updated in 2005.

John Fall. “East Bay Neighborhoods. Downtown Berkeley,” SF Chronicle Bay Area Traveler, (2005), available at http://www.sfgate.com/traveler/guide/eastbay/neighborhoods/berkeley.shtml#info (last visited February 2008).

Jenny Cheung

Downtown Berkeley is the place to be....The Downtown Renaissance is Well Underway

2008-02-11T15:30:00.000-08:00

I thought this article, which is from 2000, is interesting in that it actually depicts downtown Berkeley as the "place to be" and makes a list of all the alleged attractions that make it so. I thought the article may help us understand the goals that were sought for downtown Berkeley then as compared to now. The article appeared on the City of Berkeley website (http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/news/2000/00jul/072500Dntwn.html)

Over the last five years, Downtown Berkeley has benefited from over $150 million in new public and private investment in its buildings and infrastructure. Some of these projects are in the planning and design phase, but many are well underway.

Along with new housing, restaurants, clubs, arts and entertainment, the area is also receiving a high-profile streetscape improvement. Approximately $2.3 million dollars from local bond Measure S will pay for a variety of improvements aimed at enhancing the pedestrian environment along Shattuck Avenue as well as the downtown thoroughfares along University Avenue and Addison Street. Combined, these exciting projects will no doubt attract the attention of residents and visitors alike!

Here's a snap-shot of what to expect.......

ARTS AND CULTURE

The Arts Scene in Berkeley is flourishing! Take a peek at what's on the horizon....

The Berkeley Rep will complete their 600 seat main stage construction in spring 2001
The Nevo Educational Center is about to begin rehabilitation of the lovely and historic Golden Sheaf Bakery Building to accommodate a dramatic arts educational center
Look for the Aurora Theater to open with a 160 seat theater in the Golden Sheaf Building
Freight and Salvage will be bringing their popular entertainment venue to 2020 Addison Street
The Judah Magnes Museum has acquired the building at 2121 Allston Way as a site for a future new Museum

RESTAURANTS

If we haven't already whet your appetite, then perhaps the following list of hip and fabulous food establishments will!

Cafe Centro is serving spectacular Italian cuisine
Cafe Elodie bakery and cafe is in the Frances Kittredge Shattuck Building
Baja Fresh serves fine Mexican food
Venues offers a full service restaurant on Shattuck near Dwight
Becketts plans to open in November with an Irish restaurant and bar
The gang from Cesar's will be opening a first class restaurant/bar/jazz club at Addison and Shattuck in November

SHOPPING

Several new retailers have joined the already hot shopping district in the downtown. These include;

Gateway Computers, Tiny Computer, Parrot Cellular, Sujaro Wholesale African and World Art, and others.

OFFICE BUILDINGS

Downtown is also an incredible place for office space. The recently retrofitted and remodeled Frances Kittredge Shattuck Building and Kaplan Building are great examples of newly restored office venues.

HOUSING

Several new and renovated buildings will combine to bring approximately 455 new downtown housing units. These include:

the spectacular new Gaia building at 2116 Allston Way
the Oak Court Building at 2161 Allston Way
the Stark Hotel
the Art-Tech building
the Library Garden
the Center Street Housing building

If you haven't experienced the Berkeley Downtown lately, now is a great time to reacquaint yourself with it's charm, beauty, and incredible activity!