City Watch Holding our Elected Officials Accountable Party members may send in a complaint or praise for an elected official and we will post it on the party website. If you believe that a complaint or praise is unfounded or not supported by our party platform, email the party secretary at info@berkeleyparty.com and we will poll the members for their opinion. Complaints are rated as minus one, praise as plus one. The aggregate is posted after each elected official's name.

Official City of Berkeley website: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us

(back to main page)

Praise/Complaints for:

(back to top) a

Shirley Dean (-10):

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Mayor Dean voted to oppose a citizens' initiative regarding the "Height of Buildings," having neglected the civic duty imposed upon an elected public steward even to invite the proponents to present briefly the grounds for the Measure P. While segments of the community may certainly hold opposing opinions, the Council bore an obligation at least to hear why the proponents of an initiative whose measure qualified with 50% more signatures than were necessary think the initiative necessary. This choice to avoid dialogue and informed decision-making is unfortunate in a city that nurtured the free speech movement, and it reflects an unproductive deafness to neighborhood citizen concerns. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Mayor Dean voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2700 San Pablo Avenue, and even ignored the neighborhood's request for mediation. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 127% (35 units on 16,870 square feet, making it equivalent to 91 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 40 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and justify bonus and concessions. The project contravenes numerous goals, policies, and guidelines of the adopted West Berkeley Plan, disregards the the General Plan's goals, offers a score of inconsistencies with zoning ordinance, and by ignoring some 12 potentially significant environmental impacts and 5 significant impacts, makes a mockery of the CEQA process. Citizens recall that CEQA "process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree." Furthermore, such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Mayor Dean voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2451-71 Shattuck Avenue. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 335% (100 units on 25,015 square feet, making it equivalent to 174 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 40 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and reasonably justify bonus and concessions; it misapplied the State Density Bonus Law by falsely claiming that the bonus units were not subject to any development standards, and awarding a bonus where, for lack of a zoning density standard, no bonus can be calculated; the approval authorized a use permit for the relaxation of parking standards without specifically tying that relaxation to the maintenance of a retail or household services as required by ordinance. Such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Mayor Dean voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2119 University Avenue. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 41% (44 units on 13,560 square feet, making it equivalent to 141 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 100 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and reasonably justify bonus and concessions; it misapplied the State Density Bonus Law by falsely claiming that the bonus units were not subject to any development standards, and awarding a bonus where, for lack of a zoning density standard, no bonus can be calculated; the approval authorized a Use Permit for four instead of the five floors actually approved, so that fifth floor will be built without a permit; and, perhaps most egregiously, the denial of the appeal subverted the conscientious application of the California Environmental Quality act by endorsing an indefensible use of a so-called "categorical exemption" from CEQA's provisions. Citizens recall that CEQA "process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree." Furthermore, such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Praise: A 50-foot, 4-story building where 3 stories and 36 feet is the maximum, 65% lot coverage where 45% is the limit, 40 dwelling units in place of the Master and General Plan's guidance for 16 units, 14-17 parking spaces versus about 47 parking spots needed, all on a lot of 17,867 square feet in the C-SA zoning district: 38% too high, 145% too dense (98 units per acre equivalent, where 40 units per acre is the limit). Approval of this design at 2517 Sacramento Street aborted a mediation process mid-stride and stuck a finger in the eye of neighborhood residents throughout the city, once again putting any real commitment to process behind pay-back to cronies and developer interests. Neighbors weren't present because they were told the mediation would continue. The vote absolutely trumpets a lack of sensitivity to balancing needs of existing neighborhoods with the competing demands for new housing. Mayor Dean, not deaf to the concerns of neighborhood residents or to the need for housing, voted to deny approval of this out-of-scale project, certain that a more modest design could accommodate a wider range of goals more equitably. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: Tune Up Masters, at 1698 University Avenue, has been shown to be an unflagging violator of their Use Permit's conditions of operation as well as practioners of poor environmental behavior. They have been terrible neighbors to those who live around their place of business. In 1996, the Council retreated from revocation and attached additional conditions to their Use Permit and left the neighbors to suffer. On 19 March 2002, the City again retreated from supporting the neighborhood surrounding Tune Up Masters, and instead adopted Resolution No. 61,557-N.S. which simply layered on more conditions of operation and stayed the ZAB's revocation of Tune Up Master's Use Permit. The reason this time: in spite of hundreds of hours of surveillance, tens of thousands of dollars of staff time, and a long list of documented violations, the City appears to have neglected to have actually cited Tune Up Masters in a legally sufficient fashion. Yet, as the neighbors were abandoned, nowhere in the City Council's minutes is admonishment of Planning's failing noted. No accountability = no improvement of service. Mayor Dean supported this retreat in which, once again, left a neighborhood to swing in the breeze. (Submitted May 30,2002)

Complaint: Kriss Worthington put a recommendation on the April 16 City Council agenda: "Vandalized Berkeley Hillel and Other Incidents Aimed at the Jewish Community. He proposed that we follow up on our designation of Berkeley as a hate free zone by bringing together representatives of different groups and individuals that have been the target of hate actions in Berkeley, in a city sponsored public event embracing all the affected communities." (This item was pulled by Council member Armstrong and held over to April 29.) Then on April 16th, Kriss Worthington submitted a Council item proposing a hate crime unit in the Berkeley Police Department.

I was saddened but not surprised to read a Daily Cal headline, "Violence Directed At Jews Prompts Mayor To Propose Hate Crimes Unit": 4/26/2002. It is apparent that the Mayor is now trying to take Councilmember Worthington's ideas and take credit for them. While it is desirable for the Mayor to support this idea, it is unfortunately divisive and negative to claim it is her proposal without crediting Kriss and many others already working on this. Can't we all just work together on those issues where we agree? (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On April 29th, Mayor Dean, Olds, Hawley, Armstrong and Shirek effectively killed campaign finance reform for this November's ballot. The Agenda item, from Worthington, called for council to indicate their intentions to implement campaign finance reform and request the City Manager to have attorneys review proposals. It is necessary that this happen now so that it is ready by the November election.

Council member Hawley made a substitute motion that referred the item to the budget process, thus delaying the item until it would be too late for the November ballot. The right thing to do would have been to allow the voters to decide on campaign finance reform this fall instead of killing the issue through delaying tactics. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: At the City Council meeting for Tuesday, March 19, 2002 Mayor Dean, as chair of the City Council, failed to bring the General Plan up for consideration by council despite being listed on the agenda as the first item under "New Business/Priority". Here is how one observer characterized the meeting:

"Un-ending grandstanding and other stalling techniques delayed the item until it was too late in the evening to begin discussion. Councilmember Armstrong began the meeting with a long speech about the time wasted by members who grandstand, and then proceeded to stay on her soapbox all evening long. Councilmember Olds complained that she hadn't had enough time to study the plan - although she has had the final version since September of last year, and her aide, Susan Wengraf is on the Planning Commission that passed it unanimously. Mayor Dean forgot that the item was on the official council list of items from the agenda to be taken up in order. When that fact was clarified by the City Manager, she just ploughed right ahead with a different item. The resulting delay not only meant the loss of more than a month of implementation time, it meant that the staff planner who has sheparded the plan for the last three years, Andrew Thomas (leaving because of the long hours and relative low pay in Berkeley) would no longer be on staff for its final passage."

Whether the General Plan wasn't taken up because of Dean's inability to run the meeting well, or because Mayor Dean intentionally used her position to keep the General Plan from being brought to the table, the results are the same: Council has failed its citizens by not moving forward in a timely manner on this important issue. (Submitted April 4, 2002)

Praise: On February 5, Mayor Dean voted to approve the following resolution: Public Safety Communications Tower: Direct the City Manager to begin environmental review of two options for the relocation of the Public Safety Tower: 1) the recycling center option that utilizes the Transfer Station antenna system as well as one close to the Public Safety Building or 2) another preferred option is to erect two “flag pole” designed antennas which are more visually appropriate for Berkeley’s historic Civic Center and residential neighborhood. Action: that the Council is committed to finding an alternative and refer to the City Manager: 1) consideration of an alternative that includes the construction of two 110 foot towers or a replacement with a monopole or monopoles on the current site with the understanding the replacement is under guidelines as recommended by Mayor Dean; 2) the City Manager is also free to consider other alternatives either already listed in the consultant’s report or as a result of new technology or as new ideas emerge as long as they meet the guidelines; and 3) that the Council agrees the financing can come from the sale of parking lots owned by the city already used for parking and listed in the EIR documents as mitigation for the Public Safety Building and also to be considered for financing is the salvage value of the tower that is taken down, and if there is any remaining balance, if any, must be referred to the budget process. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Complaint: On October 10th, Mayor Dean issued a statement that was posted on the City of Berkeley Website. The statement contained erroneous information that stated the council majority "are advocating for the Berkeley City Council to pass a resolution condemning U.S. anti-terrorist activity in Afghanistan, asking national leaders to stop the bombing in Afghanistan, …". This was untrue and highly inflammatory. The Mayor's statement also implied that Councilmember Spring had denounced the United States as a "terrorist nation." Despite being informed that Councilmember Spring had been misquoted in the Daily Californian newspaper, Mayor Dean continued to spread false information for over one week by not immediately correcting her statement on the City's website. Mayor Dean's action caused many people to wrongly conclude that the council majority had condemned the U.S. Government's actions and that Councilmember Spring had denounced the United States as a terrorist nation thereby subjecting the City of Berkeley to severe criticism. Mayor Dean's use of city property to spread false information is inappropriate. (Ratified Nov. 21, 2001)

Complaint: On July 24th, 2001 the Berkeley City Council heard an appeal to the Zoning Adjustments Board approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Use Permit for a 5 story mixed use building at 1392 University Avenue. The project description did not contain an accurate and complete description and rendering of the building's height, mezzanines (if any), elevator tower(s), and all accessory structures. Without this information the council and public cannot adequately evaluate the impact this project will have. Mayor Dean did not know, or did not care, what she was approving. This is not good government nor is it acceptable behavior. It certainly isn't fair. (Ratified 8/20/01)

Complaint: On July 24th, 2001 the Berkeley City Council conducted a public hearing regarding an appeal for the construction of a new multi-family dwelling, 2025 Rose Street, at Henry. Normally the city council does not make a decision immediately after the hearing to give all parties a chance to correct any misinformation. There was considerable conflicting testimony about whether or not a mediated agreement between a previous owner and the neighbors was binding. All parties deserved a chance to correct misinformation. Mayor Dean voted to decide the issue immediately thus denying the parties a chance to submit additional written information after the public hearing. As a result, this was not a fair process. (Ratified 8/20/01)

Complaint: On May 08, 2001 the city council met to decide 2700 San Pablo. The project presented to them by current planning and the developer was not the same project presented to the Zoning Adjustments Board. The new project was not the result of a compromise between the developer and the community. By substituting a new project at an appeal to council, the developer and current planning is avoiding effective commission and public input and violating our ordinances. Mayor Dean accepted this corrupt process by voting for the new project instead of demanding that the new project go back for the required hearings before the Zoning Adjustments Board and the Design Review Committee. Mayor Dean thereby violated The Berkeley Party platform #1 that requires a fair public process. (Ratified 8/20/01)

(back to top)a

Linda Maio (-3):

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Maio voted to oppose a citizens' initiative regarding the "Height of Buildings," having neglected the civic duty imposed upon an elected public steward even to invite the proponents to present briefly the grounds for the Measure P. While segments of the community may certainly hold opposing opinions, the Council bore an obligation at least to hear why the proponents of an initiative whose measure qualified with 50% more signatures than were necessary think the initiative necessary. This choice to avoid dialogue and informed decision-making is unfortunate in a city that nurtured the free speech movement, and it reflects an unproductive deafness to neighborhood citizen concerns. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Maio voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2700 San Pablo Avenue, and even ignored the neighborhood's request for mediation. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 127% (35 units on 16,870 square feet, making it equivalent to 91 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 40 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and justify bonus and concessions. The project contravenes numerous goals, policies, and guidelines of the adopted West Berkeley Plan, disregards the the General Plan's goals, offers a score of inconsistencies with zoning ordinance, and by ignoring some 12 potentially significant environmental impacts and 5 significant impacts, makes a mockery of the CEQA process. Citizens recall that CEQA "process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree." Furthermore, such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Maio voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2451-71 Shattuck Avenue. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 335% (100 units on 25,015 square feet, making it equivalent to 174 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 40 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and reasonably justify bonus and concessions; it misapplied the State Density Bonus Law by falsely claiming that the bonus units were not subject to any development standards, and awarding a bonus where, for lack of a zoning density standard, no bonus can be calculated; the approval authorized a use permit for the relaxation of parking standards without specifically tying that relaxation to the maintenance of a retail or household services as required by ordinance. Such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Maio voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2119 University Avenue. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 41% (44 units on 13,560 square feet, making it equivalent to 141 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 100 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and reasonably justify bonus and concessions; it misapplied the State Density Bonus Law by falsely claiming that the bonus units were not subject to any development standards, and awarding a bonus where, for lack of a zoning density standard, no bonus can be calculated; the approval authorized a Use Permit for four instead of the five floors actually approved, so that fifth floor will be built without a permit; and, perhaps most egregiously, the denial of the appeal subverted the conscientious application of the California Environmental Quality act by endorsing an indefensible use of a so-called "categorical exemption" from CEQA's provisions. Citizens recall that CEQA "process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree." Furthermore, such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: A 50-foot, 4-story building where 3 stories and 36 feet is the maximum, 65% lot coverage where there should be 45%, 40 dwelling units in place of the Master and General Plan's guidance for 16 units, 14-17 parking spaces versus about 47 parking spots needed, all on a lot of 17,867 square feet in the C-SA zoning district: 38% too high, 145% too dense (98 units per acre equivalent, where 40 units per acre is the limit). Approval of this design at 2517 Sacramento Street aborted a mediation process mid-stride and stuck a finger in the eye of neighborhood residents throughout the city, once again putting any real commitment to process behind pay-back to cronies and developer interests. Neighbors weren't present because they were told the mediation would continue. The vote absolutely trumpets a lack of sensitivity to balancing needs of existing neighborhoods with the competing demands for new housing. Blind to a better balanced alternative, Councilmember Maio flipped the proverbial bird to Berkeley residents and voted to approve this out-of-scale monster. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Praise: On April 29, 2002, Council members Maio, Breland, Shirek, Spring and Worthington passed a motion to approve a six month moratorium on the conversions of existing building space from any other use to office, and the development of new office uses (excluding ancillary office uses) in the mixed-use light industrial (MU-LI) zoning district.

Berkeley currently has many more jobs than places for people to live. This has created a situation where thousands of commuters have to come into Berkeley each day, and the resulting demand for nearby housing has priced many out of the market. By putting a moratorium on new office space, Berkeley keeps the kind of light industry jobs it needs while not creating an even stronger demand for housing. it will also give much needed protection to Berkeley's artists and artisans to prevent evictions from their studio spaces due to office conversion. This is good sound policy.

Mayor Dean, Armstrong, Hawley and Olds showed the hypocrisy behind their sound bite "where are our children going to live?" by not supporting this measure which would begin to address the jobs/housing imbalance and thereby help make housing more available and affordable. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Praise: On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 the council heard an appeal for 1513 Belvedere Avenue to the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) decision denying an Administrative Use Permit to legalize an 8 foot high fence and 7 ½ foot high trellis within the front yard setback. The Council upheld the Zoning Adjustments Board decision and dismissed the appeal. Moved, seconded, carried (Spring/Maio; Noes - Armstrong, Hawley, Olds; Abstain - Dean). It is important that our ordinances be followed and violations are treated seriously. To do otherwise encourages building without the proper permits. This denies neighbors notice and the right to comment on projects that affect them. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Praise: On February 5, Councilmember Maio voted to approve the following resolution: Public Safety Communications Tower: Direct the City Manager to begin environmental review of two options for the relocation of the Public Safety Tower: 1) the recycling center option that utilizes the Transfer Station antenna system as well as one close to the Public Safety Building or 2) another preferred option is to erect two “flag pole” designed antennas which are more visually appropriate for Berkeley’s historic Civic Center and residential neighborhood. Action: that the Council is committed to finding an alternative and refer to the City Manager: 1) consideration of an alternative that includes the construction of two 110 foot towers or a replacement with a monopole or monopoles on the current site with the understanding the replacement is under guidelines as recommended by Mayor Dean; 2) the City Manager is also free to consider other alternatives either already listed in the consultant’s report or as a result of new technology or as new ideas emerge as long as they meet the guidelines; and 3) that the Council agrees the financing can come from the sale of parking lots owned by the city already used for parking and listed in the EIR documents as mitigation for the Public Safety Building and also to be considered for financing is the salvage value of the tower that is taken down, and if there is any remaining balance, if any, must be referred to the budget process. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Complaint: On January 22, 2002, the City Council voted to approve Housing Trust Fund distributions of $2,312,888, as recommended by the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC), with one minor change. They did so in spite of evidence supplied to them that there had been serious HAC procedural problems. In making its recommendations, the HAC ignored its own stated list of priorities against which requested proposals were to be judged. HAC's list acknowledged that senior housing, which constitutes over half of all Berkeley's affordable housing, was not as urgently needed as housing for homeless families, for whom a mere 10% of the affordable housing supply was reserved. Yet the one project for homeless families that was proposed was denied the funding it needed by the HAC, in spite of its viability, while several projects for senior housing were funded! The City, including HAC, has the responsibility to provide a diverse pool of affordable housing based on the needs of the population. The public has a right to a fair process. The HAC should develop priorities for proposal submissions, as it did, and then should use those criteria to evaluate the proposals it receives, rather than funding "pet" projects or favorite developers regardless of the established criteria. A second process issue involved stewardship of public funds. Rather than making current-year funding decisions within current-year budgets, the HAC and Council funded every accepted project by pre-obligating additional funds from next year's budget -this reduces funds available for good projects coming along next year. Living outside one's budget is bad public practice and fiscally irresponsible. Councilmember Maio ignored principles of good management, fair process, and transparent knowledge of the rules that govern the community when voting to approve the HAC's recommendations without pausing to examine the HAC's flawed procedures more closely. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Complaint: On January 22, the City Council belatedly took up the question of the Public Safety Building communications tower, at 2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. This tower had been erected without notification to the neighbors of its dimensions, without public input, without public review before the DRC, ZAB, or LPC, without CEQA review, and without obtaining appropriate permits. The tower supports antennae which are crucial to the operations of emergency services; however, the defense of due and equitable process in the conduct of public affairs is of higher importance. The lack of this process -- to the point of public deception -- runs counter to the Party's first platform, asserting the public's right to a fair process. Councilmember Maio demonstrated her disregard for that principle by voting for the activation of the antennae. The injury to public process should be promptly repaired, the antennae left unpowered, and the tower subjected to a thorough public review with respect to its location, design, and safety. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Praise: On December 18, 2001 the City Council heard an appeal to Zoning Adjustments Board's decision on August 9, 2001 to approve a use permit for a 1,200 square foot third floor addition to the existing single-family residence at 762 Ensenada Avenue. The project exceeded what one could legitimately expect to be able to build in the neighborhood. Many neighbors opposed the project. While the other Council members voted to affirm the use permit, Council members Linda Maio, Betty Olds, and Dona Spring voted to not to affirm the granting of the use permit, thus supporting the neighbors legitimate expectations of what could be built in their neighborhood. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Praise: On July 24th, 2001 the Berkeley City Council heard an appeal to the Zoning Adjustments Board approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Use Permit for a 5 story mixed use building at 1392 University Avenue. The City Manager's report recommended that the council adopt a resolution affirming the Zoning Adjustments Board's decision and dismiss the appeal.

A main motion (Maio/Spring) was made to set the matter for a public hearing. Before this motion was voted on a substitute motion (Olds/Breland) was made to affirm the decision of the Zoning Adjustments Board and dismiss the appeal. Councilmember Maio did not vote for the substitute motion thus supporting the motion that the matter be set for a public hearing.

Councilmember Maio's action is consistent with the Berkeley Party Platform because the project description did not contain an accurate and complete description and rendering of the building's height, mezzanines (if any), elevator tower(s), and all accessory structures. Without this information the public cannot adequately evaluate the impact this project will have on their lives. This denies the public a right to a say in the decisions that effect their lives. There also was considerable misinformation at the Zoning Adjustment Board's hearing and the project greatly exceeds the area plan. For a fair process, the public deserved a hearing before the council. (Ratified 8/20/01)

Complaint: On May 08, 2001 the city council met to decide 2700 San Pablo. The project presented to them by current planning and the developer was not the same project presented to the Zoning Adjustments Board. The new project was not the result of a compromise between the developer and the community. By substituting a new project at an appeal to council, the developer and current planning is avoiding effective commission and public input violating our ordinances. Linda Maio accepted this corrupt process by voting for the new project instead of demanding that the new project go back for the required hearings before the Zoning Adjustments Board and the Design Review Committee. Linda Maio thereby violated The Berkeley Party platform #1 that requires a fair public process. (Ratified 8/20/01)

(back to top)a

Margaret Breland (-6):

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Breland voted to oppose a citizens' initiative regarding the "Height of Buildings," having neglected the civic duty imposed upon an elected public steward even to invite the proponents to present briefly the grounds for the Measure P. While segments of the community may certainly hold opposing opinions, the Council bore an obligation at least to hear why the proponents of an initiative whose measure qualified with 50% more signatures than were necessary think the initiative necessary. This choice to avoid dialogue and informed decision-making is unfortunate in a city that nurtured the free speech movement, and it reflects an unproductive deafness to neighborhood citizen concerns. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Breland voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2700 San Pablo Avenue, and even ignored the neighborhood's request for mediation. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 127% (35 units on 16,870 square feet, making it equivalent to 91 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 40 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and justify bonus and concessions. The project contravenes numerous goals, policies, and guidelines of the adopted West Berkeley Plan, disregards the the General Plan's goals, offers a score of inconsistencies with zoning ordinance, and by ignoring some 12 potentially significant environmental impacts and 5 significant impacts, makes a mockery of the CEQA process. Citizens recall that CEQA "process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree." Furthermore, such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Breland voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2451-71 Shattuck Avenue. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 335% (100 units on 25,015 square feet, making it equivalent to 174 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 40 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and reasonably justify bonus and concessions; it misapplied the State Density Bonus Law by falsely claiming that the bonus units were not subject to any development standards, and awarding a bonus where, for lack of a zoning density standard, no bonus can be calculated; the approval authorized a use permit for the relaxation of parking standards without specifically tying that relaxation to the maintenance of a retail or household services as required by ordinance. Such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Breland voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2119 University Avenue. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 41% (44 units on 13,560 square feet, making it equivalent to 141 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 100 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and reasonably justify bonus and concessions; it misapplied the State Density Bonus Law by falsely claiming that the bonus units were not subject to any development standards, and awarding a bonus where, for lack of a zoning density standard, no bonus can be calculated; the approval authorized a Use Permit for four instead of the five floors actually approved, so that fifth floor will be built without a permit; and, perhaps most egregiously, the denial of the appeal subverted the conscientious application of the California Environmental Quality act by endorsing an indefensible use of a so-called "categorical exemption" from CEQA's provisions. Citizens recall that CEQA "process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree." Furthermore, such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Praise: On April 29, 2002, Council members Maio, Breland, Shirek, Spring and Worthington passed a motion to approve a six month moratorium on the conversions of existing building space from any other use to office, and the development of new office uses (excluding ancillary office uses) in the mixed-use light industrial (MU-LI) zoning district.

Berkeley currently has many more jobs than places for people to live. This has created a situation where thousands of commuters have to come into Berkeley each day, and the resulting demand for nearby housing has priced many out of the market. By putting a moratorium on new office space, Berkeley keeps the kind of light industry jobs it needs while not creating an even stronger demand for housing. it will also give much needed protection to Berkeley's artists and artisans to prevent evictions from their studio spaces due to office conversion. This is good sound policy.

Mayor Dean, Armstrong, Hawley and Olds showed the hypocrisy behind their sound bite "where are our children going to live?" by not supporting this measure which would begin to address the jobs/housing imbalance and thereby help make housing more available and affordable. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Praise: On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 the council heard an appeal for 1513 Belvedere Avenue to the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) decision denying an Administrative Use Permit to legalize an 8 foot high fence and 7 ½ foot high trellis within the front yard setback. The Council upheld the Zoning Adjustments Board decision and dismissed the appeal. Moved, seconded, carried (Spring/Maio; Noes - Armstrong, Hawley, Olds; Abstain - Dean). It is important that our ordinances be followed and violations are treated seriously. To do otherwise encourages building without the proper permits. This denies neighbors notice and the right to comment on projects that affect them. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Praise: On February 5, Councilmember Breland voted to approve the following resolution: Public Safety Communications Tower: Direct the City Manager to begin environmental review of two options for the relocation of the Public Safety Tower: 1) the recycling center option that utilizes the Transfer Station antenna system as well as one close to the Public Safety Building or 2) another preferred option is to erect two “flag pole” designed antennas which are more visually appropriate for Berkeley’s historic Civic Center and residential neighborhood. Action: that the Council is committed to finding an alternative and refer to the City Manager: 1) consideration of an alternative that includes the construction of two 110 foot towers or a replacement with a monopole or monopoles on the current site with the understanding the replacement is under guidelines as recommended by Mayor Dean; 2) the City Manager is also free to consider other alternatives either already listed in the consultant’s report or as a result of new technology or as new ideas emerge as long as they meet the guidelines; and 3) that the Council agrees the financing can come from the sale of parking lots owned by the city already used for parking and listed in the EIR documents as mitigation for the Public Safety Building and also to be considered for financing is the salvage value of the tower that is taken down, and if there is any remaining balance, if any, must be referred to the budget process. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Complaint: On January 22, 2002, the City Council voted to approve Housing Trust Fund distributions of $2,312,888, as recommended by the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC), with one minor change. They did so in spite of evidence supplied to them that there had been serious HAC procedural problems. In making its recommendations, the HAC ignored its own stated list of priorities against which requested proposals were to be judged. HAC's list acknowledged that senior housing, which constitutes over half of all Berkeley's affordable housing, was not as urgently needed as housing for homeless families, for whom a mere 10% of the affordable housing supply was reserved. Yet the one project for homeless families that was proposed was denied the funding it needed by the HAC, in spite of its viability, while several projects for senior housing were funded! The City, including HAC, has the responsibility to provide a diverse pool of affordable housing based on the needs of the population. The public has a right to a fair process. The HAC should develop priorities for proposal submissions, as it did, and then should use those criteria to evaluate the proposals it receives, rather than funding "pet" projects or favorite developers regardless of the established criteria. A second process issue involved stewardship of public funds. Rather than making current-year funding decisions within current-year budgets, the HAC and Council funded every accepted project by pre-obligating additional funds from next year's budget -this reduces funds available for good projects coming along next year. Living outside one's budget is bad public practice and fiscally irresponsible. Councilmember Breland ignored principles of good management, fair process, and transparent knowledge of the rules that govern the community when voting to approve the HAC's recommendations without pausing to examine the HAC's flawed procedures more closely. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Complaint: On January 22, the City Council belatedly took up the question of the Public Safety Building communications tower, at 2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. This tower had been erected without notification to the neighbors of its dimensions, without public input, without public review before the DRC, ZAB, or LPC, without CEQA review, and without obtaining appropriate permits. The tower supports antennae which are crucial to the operations of emergency services; however, the defense of due and equitable process in the conduct of public affairs is of higher importance. The lack of this process -- to the point of public deception -- runs counter to the Party's first platform, asserting the public's right to a fair process. Councilmember Breland demonstrated her disregard for that principle by voting for the activation of the antennae. The injury to public process should be promptly repaired, the antennae left unpowered, and the tower subjected to a thorough public review with respect to its location, design, and safety. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Complaint: On July 24th, 2001 the Berkeley City Council heard an appeal to the Zoning Adjustments Board approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Use Permit for a 5 story mixed use building at 1392 University Avenue. The project description did not contain an accurate and complete description and rendering of the building's height, mezzanines (if any), elevator tower(s), and all accessory structures. Without this information the council and public cannot adequately evaluate the impact this project will have. Councilmember Breland did not know, or did not care, what she was approving. This is not good government nor is it acceptable behavior. It certainly isn't fair. (Ratified 8/20/01)

Complaint: On July 24th, 2001 the Berkeley City Council conducted a public hearing regarding an appeal for the construction of a new multi-family dwelling, 2025 Rose Street, at Henry. Normally the city council does not make a decision immediately after the hearing to give all parties a chance to correct any misinformation. There was considerable conflicting testimony about whether or not a mediated agreement between a previous owner and the neighbors was binding. All parties deserved a chance to correct misinformation. Councilmember Breland voted to decide the issue immediately thus denying the parties a chance to submit additional written information after the public hearing. As a result, this was not a fair process. (Ratified 8/20/01)

Complaint: On May 08, 2001 the city council met to decide 2700 San Pablo. The project presented to them by current planning and the developer was not the same project presented to the Zoning Adjustments Board. The new project was not the result of a compromise between the developer and the community. By substituting a new project at an appeal to council, the developer and current planning is avoiding effective commission and public input violating our ordinances. Margaret Breland accepted this corrupt process by voting for the new project instead of demanding that the new project go back for the required hearings before the Zoning Adjustments Board and the Design Review Committee. Margaret Breland thereby violated The Berkeley Party platform #1 that requires a fair public process. (Ratified 8/20/01)

(back to top)a

Maudelle Shirek (-6):

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Shirek voted to oppose a citizens' initiative regarding the "Height of Buildings," having neglected the civic duty imposed upon an elected public steward even to invite the proponents to present briefly the grounds for the Measure P. While segments of the community may certainly hold opposing opinions, the Council bore an obligation at least to hear why the proponents of an initiative whose measure qualified with 50% more signatures than were necessary think the initiative necessary. This choice to avoid dialogue and informed decision-making is unfortunate in a city that nurtured the free speech movement, and it reflects an unproductive deafness to neighborhood citizen concerns. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Shirek voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2700 San Pablo Avenue, and even ignored the neighborhood's request for mediation. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 127% (35 units on 16,870 square feet, making it equivalent to 91 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 40 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and justify bonus and concessions. The project contravenes numerous goals, policies, and guidelines of the adopted West Berkeley Plan, disregards the the General Plan's goals, offers a score of inconsistencies with zoning ordinance, and by ignoring some 12 potentially significant environmental impacts and 5 significant impacts, makes a mockery of the CEQA process. Citizens recall that CEQA "process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree." Furthermore, such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Shirek voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2451-71 Shattuck Avenue. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 335% (100 units on 25,015 square feet, making it equivalent to 174 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 40 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and reasonably justify bonus and concessions; it misapplied the State Density Bonus Law by falsely claiming that the bonus units were not subject to any development standards, and awarding a bonus where, for lack of a zoning density standard, no bonus can be calculated; the approval authorized a use permit for the relaxation of parking standards without specifically tying that relaxation to the maintenance of a retail or household services as required by ordinance. Such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Shirek voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2119 University Avenue. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 41% (44 units on 13,560 square feet, making it equivalent to 141 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 100 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and reasonably justify bonus and concessions; it misapplied the State Density Bonus Law by falsely claiming that the bonus units were not subject to any development standards, and awarding a bonus where, for lack of a zoning density standard, no bonus can be calculated; the approval authorized a Use Permit for four instead of the five floors actually approved, so that fifth floor will be built without a permit; and, perhaps most egregiously, the denial of the appeal subverted the conscientious application of the California Environmental Quality act by endorsing an indefensible use of a so-called "categorical exemption" from CEQA's provisions. Citizens recall that CEQA "process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree." Furthermore, such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: A 50-foot, 4-story building where 3 stories and 36 feet is the maximum, 65% lot coverage where there should be 45%, 40 dwelling units in place of the Master and General Plan's guidance for 16 units, 14-17 parking spaces versus about 47 parking spots needed, all on a lot of 17,867 square feet in the C-SA zoning district: 38% too high, 145% too dense (98 units per acre equivalent, where 40 units per acre is the limit). Approval of this design at 2517 Sacramento Street aborted a mediation process mid-stride and stuck a finger in the eye of neighborhood residents throughout the city, once again putting any real commitment to process behind pay-back to cronies and developer interests. Neighbors weren't present because they were told the mediation would continue. The vote absolutely trumpets a lack of sensitivity to balancing needs of existing neighborhoods with the competing demands for new housing. Blind to a better balanced alternative, Councilmember Shirek flipped the proverbial bird to Berkeley residents and voted to approve this out-of-scale monster. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: Tune Up Masters, at 1698 University Avenue, has been shown to be an unflagging violator of their Use Permit's conditions of operation as well as practioners of poor environmental behavior. They have been terrible neighbors to those who live around their place of business. In 1996, the Council retreated from revocation and attached additional conditions to their Use Permit and left the neighbors to suffer. On 19 March 2002, the City again retreated from supporting the neighborhood surrounding Tune Up Masters, and instead adopted Resolution No. 61,557-N.S. which simply layered on more conditions of operation and stayed the ZAB's revocation of Tune Up Master's Use Permit. The reason this time: in spite of hundreds of hours of surveillance, tens of thousands of dollars of staff time, and a long list of documented violations, the City appears to have neglected to have actually cited Tune Up Masters in a legally sufficient fashion. Yet, as the neighbors were abandoned, nowhere in the City Council's minutes is admonishment of Planning's failing noted. No accountability = no improvement of service. Councilmember Shirek supported this retreat in which, once again, left a neighborhood to swing in the breeze. (Submitted May 30,2002)

Praise: On April 29, 2002, Council members Maio, Breland, Shirek, Spring and Worthington passed a motion to approve a six month moratorium on the conversions of existing building space from any other use to office, and the development of new office uses (excluding ancillary office uses) in the mixed-use light industrial (MU-LI) zoning district.

Berkeley currently has many more jobs than places for people to live. This has created a situation where thousands of commuters have to come into Berkeley each day, and the resulting demand for nearby housing has priced many out of the market. By putting a moratorium on new office space, Berkeley keeps the kind of light industry jobs it needs while not creating an even stronger demand for housing. it will also give much needed protection to Berkeley's artists and artisans to prevent evictions from their studio spaces due to office conversion. This is good sound policy.

Mayor Dean, Armstrong, Hawley and Olds showed the hypocrisy behind their sound bite "where are our children going to live?" by not supporting this measure which would begin to address the jobs/housing imbalance and thereby help make housing more available and affordable. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On April 29th, Mayor Dean, Olds, Hawley, Armstrong and Shirek effectively killed campaign finance reform for this November's ballot. The Agenda item, from Worthington, called for council to indicate their intentions to implement campaign finance reform and request the City Manager to have attorneys review proposals. It is necessary that this happen now so that it is ready by the November election.

Council member Hawley made a substitute motion that referred the item to the budget process, thus delaying the item until it would be too late for the November ballot. The right thing to do would have been to allow the voters to decide on campaign finance reform this fall instead of killing the issue through delaying tactics. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Praise: On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 the council heard an appeal for 1513 Belvedere Avenue to the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) decision denying an Administrative Use Permit to legalize an 8 foot high fence and 7 ½ foot high trellis within the front yard setback. The Council upheld the Zoning Adjustments Board decision and dismissed the appeal. Moved, seconded, carried (Spring/Maio; Noes - Armstrong, Hawley, Olds; Abstain - Dean). It is important that our ordinances be followed and violations are treated seriously. To do otherwise encourages building without the proper permits. This denies neighbors notice and the right to comment on projects that affect them. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Praise: On February 5, Councilmember Shirek voted to approve the following resolution: Public Safety Communications Tower: Direct the City Manager to begin environmental review of two options for the relocation of the Public Safety Tower: 1) the recycling center option that utilizes the Transfer Station antenna system as well as one close to the Public Safety Building or 2) another preferred option is to erect two “flag pole” designed antennas which are more visually appropriate for Berkeley’s historic Civic Center and residential neighborhood. Action: that the Council is committed to finding an alternative and refer to the City Manager: 1) consideration of an alternative that includes the construction of two 110 foot towers or a replacement with a monopole or monopoles on the current site with the understanding the replacement is under guidelines as recommended by Mayor Dean; 2) the City Manager is also free to consider other alternatives either already listed in the consultant’s report or as a result of new technology or as new ideas emerge as long as they meet the guidelines; and 3) that the Council agrees the financing can come from the sale of parking lots owned by the city already used for parking and listed in the EIR documents as mitigation for the Public Safety Building and also to be considered for financing is the salvage value of the tower that is taken down, and if there is any remaining balance, if any, must be referred to the budget process. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Complaint: On January 22, 2002, the City Council voted to approve Housing Trust Fund distributions of $2,312,888, as recommended by the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC), with one minor change. They did so in spite of evidence supplied to them that there had been serious HAC procedural problems. In making its recommendations, the HAC ignored its own stated list of priorities against which requested proposals were to be judged. HAC's list acknowledged that senior housing, which constitutes over half of all Berkeley's affordable housing, was not as urgently needed as housing for homeless families, for whom a mere 10% of the affordable housing supply was reserved. Yet the one project for homeless families that was proposed was denied the funding it needed by the HAC, in spite of its viability, while several projects for senior housing were funded! The City, including HAC, has the responsibility to provide a diverse pool of affordable housing based on the needs of the population. The public has a right to a fair process. The HAC should develop priorities for proposal submissions, as it did, and then should use those criteria to evaluate the proposals it receives, rather than funding "pet" projects or favorite developers regardless of the established criteria. A second process issue involved stewardship of public funds. Rather than making current-year funding decisions within current-year budgets, the HAC and Council funded every accepted project by pre-obligating additional funds from next year's budget -this reduces funds available for good projects coming along next year. Living outside one's budget is bad public practice and fiscally irresponsible. Councilmember Shirek ignored principles of good management, fair process, and transparent knowledge of the rules that govern the community when voting to approve the HAC's recommendations without pausing to examine the HAC's flawed procedures more closely. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Complaint: On January 22, the City Council belatedly took up the question of the Public Safety Building communications tower, at 2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. This tower had been erected without notification to the neighbors of its dimensions, without public input, without public review before the DRC, ZAB, or LPC, without CEQA review, and without obtaining appropriate permits. The tower supports antennae which are crucial to the operations of emergency services; however, the defense of due and equitable process in the conduct of public affairs is of higher importance. The lack of this process -- to the point of public deception -- runs counter to the Party's first platform, asserting the public's right to a fair process. Councilmember Shirek demonstrated her disregard for that principle by voting for the activation of the antennae. The injury to public process should be promptly repaired, the antennae left unpowered, and the tower subjected to a thorough public review with respect to its location, design, and safety. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Praise: On July 24th, 2001 the Berkeley City Council heard an appeal to the Zoning Adjustments Board approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Use Permit for a 5 story mixed use building at 1392 University Avenue. The City Manager's report recommended that the council adopt a resolution affirming the Zoning Adjustments Board's decision and dismiss the appeal.

A main motion (Maio/Spring) was made to set the matter for a public hearing. Before this motion was voted on a substitute motion (Olds/Breland) was made to affirm the decision of the Zoning Adjustments Board and dismiss the appeal. Councilmember Shirek did not vote for the substitute motion thus supporting the motion that the matter be set for a public hearing.

Councilmember Shirek's action is consistent with the Berkeley Party Platform because the project description did not contain an accurate and complete description and rendering of the building's height, mezzanines (if any), elevator tower(s), and all accessory structures. Without this information the public cannot adequately evaluate the impact this project will have on their lives. This denies the public a right to a say in the decisions that effect their lives. There also was considerable misinformation at the Zoning Adjustment Board's hearing and the project greatly exceeds the area plan. For a fair process, the public deserved a hearing before the council. (Ratified 8/20/01)

Complaint: On July 24th, 2001 the Berkeley City Council conducted a public hearing regarding an appeal for the construction of a new multi-family dwelling, 2025 Rose Street, at Henry. Normally the city council does not make a decision immediately after the hearing to give all parties a chance to correct any misinformation. There was considerable conflicting testimony about whether or not a mediated agreement between a previous owner and the neighbors was binding. All parties deserved a chance to correct misinformation. Councilmember Shirek voted to decide the issue immediately thus denying the parties a chance to submit additional written information after the public hearing. As a result, this was not a fair process. (Ratified 8/20/01)

 

(back to top)

Dona Spring (+5):

Complaint: On October 8, Dona Spring recorded her July 23, 2002, vote against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2451-71 Shattuck Avenue. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 335% (100 units on 25,015 square feet, making it equivalent to 174 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 40 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and reasonably justify bonus and concessions; it misapplied the State Density Bonus Law by falsely claiming that the bonus units were not subject to any development standards, and awarding a bonus where, for lack of a zoning density standard, no bonus can be calculated; the approval authorized a use permit for the relaxation of parking standards without specifically tying that relaxation to the maintenance of a retail or household services as required by ordinance. Such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Proposed 10/8/02)

Praise: On April 29, 2002, Council members Maio, Breland, Shirek, Spring and Worthington passed a motion to approve a six month moratorium on the conversions of existing building space from any other use to office, and the development of new office uses (excluding ancillary office uses) in the mixed-use light industrial (MU-LI) zoning district.

Berkeley currently has many more jobs than places for people to live. This has created a situation where thousands of commuters have to come into Berkeley each day, and the resulting demand for nearby housing has priced many out of the market. By putting a moratorium on new office space, Berkeley keeps the kind of light industry jobs it needs while not creating an even stronger demand for housing. it will also give much needed protection to Berkeley's artists and artisans to prevent evictions from their studio spaces due to office conversion. This is good sound policy.

Mayor Dean, Armstrong, Hawley and Olds showed the hypocrisy behind their sound bite "where are our children going to live?" by not supporting this measure which would begin to address the jobs/housing imbalance and thereby help make housing more available and affordable. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Praise: On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 the council heard an appeal for 1513 Belvedere Avenue to the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) decision denying an Administrative Use Permit to legalize an 8 foot high fence and 7 ½ foot high trellis within the front yard setback. The Council upheld the Zoning Adjustments Board decision and dismissed the appeal. Moved, seconded, carried (Spring/Maio; Noes - Armstrong, Hawley, Olds; Abstain - Dean). It is important that our ordinances be followed and violations are treated seriously. To do otherwise encourages building without the proper permits. This denies neighbors notice and the right to comment on projects that affect them. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Praise: On February 5, Councilmember Spring voted to approve the following resolution: Public Safety Communications Tower: Direct the City Manager to begin environmental review of two options for the relocation of the Public Safety Tower: 1) the recycling center option that utilizes the Transfer Station antenna system as well as one close to the Public Safety Building or 2) another preferred option is to erect two “flag pole” designed antennas which are more visually appropriate for Berkeley’s historic Civic Center and residential neighborhood. Action: that the Council is committed to finding an alternative and refer to the City Manager: 1) consideration of an alternative that includes the construction of two 110 foot towers or a replacement with a monopole or monopoles on the current site with the understanding the replacement is under guidelines as recommended by Mayor Dean; 2) the City Manager is also free to consider other alternatives either already listed in the consultant’s report or as a result of new technology or as new ideas emerge as long as they meet the guidelines; and 3) that the Council agrees the financing can come from the sale of parking lots owned by the city already used for parking and listed in the EIR documents as mitigation for the Public Safety Building and also to be considered for financing is the salvage value of the tower that is taken down, and if there is any remaining balance, if any, must be referred to the budget process. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Complaint: On January 22, 2002, the City Council voted to approve Housing Trust Fund distributions of $2,312,888, as recommended by the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC), with one minor change. They did so in spite of evidence supplied to them that there had been serious HAC procedural problems. In making its recommendations, the HAC ignored its own stated list of priorities against which requested proposals were to be judged. HAC's list acknowledged that senior housing, which constitutes over half of all Berkeley's affordable housing, was not as urgently needed as housing for homeless families, for whom a mere 10% of the affordable housing supply was reserved. Yet the one project for homeless families that was proposed was denied the funding it needed by the HAC, in spite of its viability, while several projects for senior housing were funded! The City, including HAC, has the responsibility to provide a diverse pool of affordable housing based on the needs of the population. The public has a right to a fair process. The HAC should develop priorities for proposal submissions, as it did, and then should use those criteria to evaluate the proposals it receives, rather than funding "pet" projects or favorite developers regardless of the established criteria. A second process issue involved stewardship of public funds. Rather than making current-year funding decisions within current-year budgets, the HAC and Council funded every accepted project by pre-obligating additional funds from next year's budget -this reduces funds available for good projects coming along next year. Living outside one's budget is bad public practice and fiscally irresponsible. Councilmember Spring ignored principles of good management, fair process, and transparent knowledge of the rules that govern the community when voting to approve the HAC's recommendations without pausing to examine the HAC's flawed procedures more closely. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Praise: On January 22, the City Council belatedly took up the question of the Public Safety Building communications tower, at 2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. This tower had been erected without notification to the neighbors of its dimensions, without public input, without public review before the DRC, ZAB, or LPC, without CEQA review, and without obtaining appropriate permits. The tower supports antennae which are crucial to the operations of emergency services; however, the defense of due and equitable process in the conduct of public affairs is of higher importance. The lack of this process -- to the point of public deception -- runs counter to the Party's first platform, asserting the public's right to a fair process. Councilmember Spring demonstrated her support for that principle by voting against the activation of its antennae. The injury to public process should be promptly repaired, the antennae left unpowered, and the tower subjected to a thorough public review with respect to its location, design, and safety. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Praise: On December 18, 2001 the City Council heard an appeal to Zoning Adjustments Board's decision on August 9, 2001 to approve a use permit for a 1,200 square foot third floor addition to the existing single-family residence at 762 Ensenada Avenue. The project exceeded what one could legitimately expect to be able to build in the neighborhood. Many neighbors opposed the project. While the other Council members voted to affirm the use permit, Council members Linda Maio, Betty Olds, and Dona Spring voted to not to affirm the granting of the use permit, thus supporting the neighbors legitimate expectations of what could be built in their neighborhood. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Praise: On July 24th, 2001 the Berkeley City Council heard an appeal to the Zoning Adjustments Board approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Use Permit for a 5 story mixed use building at 1392 University Avenue. The City Manager's report recommended that the council adopt a resolution affirming the Zoning Adjustments Board's decision and dismiss the appeal.

A main motion (Maio/Spring) was made to set the matter for a public hearing. Before this motion was voted on a substitute motion (Olds/Breland) was made to affirm the decision of the Zoning Adjustments Board and dismiss the appeal. Councilmember Spring did not vote for the substitute motion thus supporting the motion that the matter be set for a public hearing.

Councilmember Spring's action is consistent with the Berkeley Party Platform because the project description did not contain an accurate and complete description and rendering of the building's height, mezzanines (if any), elevator tower(s), and all accessory structures. Without this information the public cannot adequately evaluate the impact this project will have on their lives. This denies the public a right to a say in the decisions that effect their lives. There also was considerable misinformation at the Zoning Adjustment Board's hearing and the project greatly exceeds the area plan. For a fair process, the public deserved a hearing before the council. (Ratified 8/20/01)

Praise: On April 24th, 2001, at city council, Councilmember Spring proposed the following resolution: Adopt guidelines for the Planning Department that development projects must contain accurate and complete descriptions and renderings of the buildings' height, mezzanines, elevators and all accessory structures before submittal for approval; and any increases in height and dimension to these approved plans must return to the final decision making board for a ruling. This policy would go a long way towards stopping corrupt current planning practices of issuing building plan permits for buildings larger than allowed by the planning process. An example of this is the Gaia building, where current planning issued a building permit for a 10 story building where the use permit only allowed 7 stories. This resolution is consistent with Platform #1, requiring a fair public process. (Ratified 8/20/01)

(back to top)a

Miriam Hawley (-11):

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Hawley voted to oppose a citizens' initiative regarding the "Height of Buildings," having neglected the civic duty imposed upon an elected public steward even to invite the proponents to present briefly the grounds for the Measure P. While segments of the community may certainly hold opposing opinions, the Council bore an obligation at least to hear why the proponents of an initiative whose measure qualified with 50% more signatures than were necessary think the initiative necessary. This choice to avoid dialogue and informed decision-making is unfortunate in a city that nurtured the free speech movement, and it reflects an unproductive deafness to neighborhood citizen concerns. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Hawley voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2451-71 Shattuck Avenue. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 335% (100 units on 25,015 square feet, making it equivalent to 174 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 40 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and reasonably justify bonus and concessions; it misapplied the State Density Bonus Law by falsely claiming that the bonus units were not subject to any development standards, and awarding a bonus where, for lack of a zoning density standard, no bonus can be calculated; the approval authorized a use permit for the relaxation of parking standards without specifically tying that relaxation to the maintenance of a retail or household services as required by ordinance. Such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Hawley voted against a public hearing of a citizens' appeal of the project proposed for 2119 University Avenue. This project was approved at a density contrary to the guidelines of the adopted general plan by 41% (44 units on 13,560 square feet, making it equivalent to 141 units per acre in an area the maximum for which is 100 units per acre), without the economic feasibility analysis required by both local ordinance and State law to develop and reasonably justify bonus and concessions; it misapplied the State Density Bonus Law by falsely claiming that the bonus units were not subject to any development standards, and awarding a bonus where, for lack of a zoning density standard, no bonus can be calculated; the approval authorized a Use Permit for four instead of the five floors actually approved, so that fifth floor will be built without a permit; and, perhaps most egregiously, the denial of the appeal subverted the conscientious application of the California Environmental Quality act by endorsing an indefensible use of a so-called "categorical exemption" from CEQA's provisions. Citizens recall that CEQA "process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree." Furthermore, such unplanned densification represents a cavalier disregard for the public process that produced the General Plan, and a failure to hear the appeal reflects and equally unfortunate disrespect for the voices of concerned citizens. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: A 50-foot, 4-story building where 3 stories and 36 feet is the maximum, 65% lot coverage where there should be 45%, 40 dwelling units in place of the Master and General Plan's guidance for 16 units, 14-17 parking spaces versus about 47 parking spots needed, all on a lot of 17,867 square feet in the C-SA zoning district: 38% too high, 145% too dense (98 units per acre equivalent, where 40 units per acre is the limit). Approval of this design at 2517 Sacramento Street aborted a mediation process mid-stride and stuck a finger in the eye of neighborhood residents throughout the city, once again putting any real commitment to process behind pay-back to cronies and developer interests. Neighbors weren't present because they were told the mediation would continue. The vote absolutely trumpets a lack of sensitivity to balancing needs of existing neighborhoods with the competing demands for new housing. Blind to a better balanced alternative, Councilmember Hawley flipped the proverbial bird to Berkeley residents and voted to approve this out-of-scale monster. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: Tune Up Masters, at 1698 University Avenue, has been shown to be an unflagging violator of their Use Permit's conditions of operation as well as practioners of poor environmental behavior. They have been terrible neighbors to those who live around their place of business. In 1996, the Council retreated from revocation and attached additional conditions to their Use Permit and left the neighbors to suffer. On 19 March 2002, the City again retreated from supporting the neighborhood surrounding Tune Up Masters, and instead adopted Resolution No. 61,557-N.S. which simply layered on more conditions of operation and stayed the ZAB's revocation of Tune Up Master's Use Permit. The reason this time: in spite of hundreds of hours of surveillance, tens of thousands of dollars of staff time, and a long list of documented violations, the City appears to have neglected to have actually cited Tune Up Masters in a legally sufficient fashion. Yet, as the neighbors were abandoned, nowhere in the City Council's minutes is admonishment of Planning's failing noted. No accountability = no improvement of service. Councilmember Hawley supported this retreat in which, once again, left a neighborhood to swing in the breeze. (Submitted May 30,2002)

Complaint: On April 29th, Mayor Dean, Olds, Hawley, Armstrong and Shirek effectively killed campaign finance reform for this November's ballot. The Agenda item, from Worthington, called for council to indicate their intentions to implement campaign finance reform and request the City Manager to have attorneys review proposals. It is necessary that this happen now so that it is ready by the November election.

Council member Hawley made a substitute motion that referred the item to the budget process, thus delaying the item until it would be too late for the November ballot. The right thing to do would have been to allow the voters to decide on campaign finance reform this fall instead of killing the issue through delaying tactics. (Ratified 9/29/02)

Complaint: On January 22, 2002, the City Council voted to approve Housing Trust Fund distributions of $2,312,888, as recommended by the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC), with one minor change. They did so in spite of evidence supplied to them that there had been serious HAC procedural problems. In making its recommendations, the HAC ignored its own stated list of priorities against which requested proposals were to be judged. HAC's list acknowledged that senior housing, which constitutes over half of all Berkeley's affordable housing, was not as urgently needed as housing for homeless families, for whom a mere 10% of the affordable housing supply was reserved. Yet the one project for homeless families that was proposed was denied the funding it needed by the HAC, in spite of its viability, while several projects for senior housing were funded! The City, including HAC, has the responsibility to provide a diverse pool of affordable housing based on the needs of the population. The public has a right to a fair process. The HAC should develop priorities for proposal submissions, as it did, and then should use those criteria to evaluate the proposals it receives, rather than funding "pet" projects or favorite developers regardless of the established criteria. A second process issue involved stewardship of public funds. Rather than making current-year funding decisions within current-year budgets, the HAC and Council funded every accepted project by pre-obligating additional funds from next year's budget -this reduces funds available for good projects coming along next year. Living outside one's budget is bad public practice and fiscally irresponsible. Councilmember Hawley ignored principles of good management, fair process, and transparent knowledge of the rules that govern the community when voting to approve the HAC's recommendations without pausing to examine the HAC's flawed procedures more closely. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Complaint: On January 22, the City Council belatedly took up the question of the Public Safety Building communications tower, at 2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. This tower had been erected without notification to the neighbors of its dimensions, without public input, without public review before the DRC, ZAB, or LPC, without CEQA review, and without obtaining appropriate permits. The tower supports antennae which are crucial to the operations of emergency services; however, the defense of due and equitable process in the conduct of public affairs is of higher importance. The lack of this process -- to the point of public deception -- runs counter to the Party's first platform, asserting the public's right to a fair process. Councilmember Hawley demonstrated her disregard for that principle by voting for the activation of the antennae. The injury to public process should be promptly repaired, the antennae left unpowered, and the tower subjected to a thorough public review with respect to its location, design, and safety. (Ratified 3/19/02)

Complaint: On July 24th, 2001 the Berkeley City Council heard an appeal to the Zoning Adjustments Board approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Use Permit for a 5 story mixed use building at 1392 University Avenue. The project description did not contain an accurate and complete description and rendering of the building's height, mezzanines (if any), elevator tower(s), and all accessory structures. Without this information the council and public cannot adequately evaluate the impact this project will have. Councilmember Hawley did not know, or did not care, what she was approving. This is not good government nor is it acceptable behavior. It certainly isn't fair. (Ratified 8/20/01)

Complaint: On July 24th, 2001 the Berkeley City Council conducted a public hearing regarding an appeal for the construction of a new multi-family dwelling, 2025 Rose Street, at Henry. Normally the city council does not make a decision immediately after the hearing to give all parties a chance to correct any misinformation. There was considerable conflicting testimony about whether or not a mediated agreement between a previous owner and the neighbors was binding. All parties deserved a chance to correct misinformation. Councilmember Hawley voted to decide the issue immediately thus denying the parties a chance to submit additional written information after the public hearing. As a result, this was not a fair process. (Ratified 8/20/01)

Complaint: On April 24th, 2001, at city council, Councilmember Hawley pulled from the Consesnt Calendar Councilmember Spring's resolution that the city adopt guidelines for the Planning Department that development projects must contain accurate and complete descriptions and renderings of the buildings' height, mezzanines, elevators and all accessory structures before submittal for approval; and any increases in height and dimension to these approved plans must return to the final decision making board for a ruling. The resolution is consistent with The Berkeley Party's platform #1 requiring a fair public process and Councilmember Hawley's actions are inconsistent with that platform. (Ratified 8/20/01)

(back to top)a

Betty Olds (-8) :

Complaint: On July 23, 2002, Councilmember Olds voted to oppose a citizens' initiative regarding the "Height of Buildings," having neglected the civic duty imposed upon an elected public steward even to invite the proponents to present briefly the grounds for the Measure P. While segments of the community may certainly hold opposing opinions, the Council bore an obligation at least to hear why the proponents of an initiative whose measure qualified with 50% more signatures than were necessary think the initiative necessary. This choice to avoid dialogue and informed decision-making is unfortunate