Three Things You Need to Do about the Neighborhood Preservation Forum on June 7th
Number 1: Mark your Calendar and Reserve the Date
Berkeley Neighborhoods Council invites you to participate in a public forum to discuss the impact of growth on our neighborhood’s quality of life and help work on creating solutions.
Art House Gallery
2905 Shattuck Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94705
10:00am — 1:00pm Forum and Round Table discussions
Number 2: Think About the Future of Your Neighborhood and City
Panel Moderator: Steve Finacom, Former President, Berkeley Historical Society
Topics for Discussion and Speakers include:
- Density — how is it calculated, how much is enough, what is the anticipated growth in Berkeley and how much of that demand is currently being met or planned?
- Panelist — David Shiver, Analyst
- Access to Sun Energy and Open Space — how valuable are views of the Bay and Hills, what is the human impact of diminished light in your backyard, how does residential solar energy fit into Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan, what neighborhoods lack adequate open space, what is usable open space in an apartment building, does an apartment building roof top garden qualify as common open space?
- Panelist — Patrick Sheahan, Planning Commissioner
- Detriment — what is it and why is it important? How it’s supposed to be used and how it is being used or not.
- Panelist — Sophie Hahn, Member, Zoning Adjustments Board
- Landmarks — How do we preserve our most important historic heritage? Should efforts be focused on the Downtown because it’s the area most at risk?
- Panelist — Austene Hall, President, Landmarks Preservation Commission
- Revenue Needs — how do we preserve our neighborhoods, meet our housing needs and provide the revenues to pay for necessary City services?
- Panelist — Shirley Dean, former Mayor
The panelist presentations will be followed by questions, comments and discussion by attendees so that all participants will have input into what will become our next steps in our mission to unite and protect our neighborhoods.
Number 3: E-mail BNC50@berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com TODAY that you will attend
Redistricting — The Ninth Inning, Bases Loaded, Two Out, the Score is Tied and The Judge Hits a Home Run for the Bates Team
Excuse our enthusiasm for baseball, but after all is said and done, everyone needs some respite from City affairs and, to us, the advent of spring time along with the warmth of summer always meant baseball. This year’s season is especially a hard one not only because of the awful drought and high risk fire season that the drought brings to us, but also due to the heavy issue of redistricting. Frankly, BNC simply can’t get our heads wrapped around the actions that occurred. Please refer to our April eNEWS for the best (we don’t mind tooting our own horn) timeline that’s been published to date.
Here’s an update:
- April 29, 2014: City Council meeting at which 3 items regarding redistricting are discussed.
- From Mayor Bates: This item was on the Consent Calendar, a place reserved for non-controversial items that are reasonably expected to be approved without discussion.BNC Comment: How any item concerning redistricting could be considered “non-controversial” completely escapes us. As anticipated, the item was pulled from the Consent Calendar and treated as an Action item. Some 11 speakers lined up, all condemning the item in no uncertain terms saying it was, appalling, shameful, shocking, cynical, undemocratic and more.
The Mayor stated in his item that the City had received two letters challenging the Council’s vote on March 11th to place the BSDC map on the November election and to file an action in court to determine the district boundaries to be used for that election. The item states that the challenges were based on alleged violations of the Brown Act but does not elaborate. It also states that the purpose of the item is to alleviate any concerns about this.
BNC note: the Brown Act violation challenges were based on the fact that the actions taken by the Council were not specifically mentioned on the agenda, so that the public did not have notice that the actions taken were being considered. The item also does not state that State law gives jurisdictions 30 days from the date the violations occurred to “cure” them, i.e. dismiss the Brown Act violations by re-voting on the matter.
Mayor Bates was asked by Council Member Arreguin whether he believed such a violation had occurred. Mayor Bates responded “No.” Council Member Arreguin then asked why then did the Mayor believe it was necessary to ratify the Council’s March 11th actions. No answer was given to this question.
Council Member Worthington Moved, Seconded by Council Member Arreguin to delay voting on this item until 2 measures also on this agenda regarding Council consideration of some 14 different compromise maps was completed. This motion failed.
Voting Yes: Council Members Anderson, Arreguin and Worthington Voting No: Mayor Bates and Council Members Capitelli, Wengraf, Wozniak Abstain: Council Member Moore Absent: Council Member Maio Mayor Bates moved and Council Member Wozniak seconded a motion to ratify the Council’s actions on March 11th. This motion was approved.
Voting Yes: Mayor Bates and Council Members Capitelli, Moore, Wengraf, Wozniak Voting No: Council Members Anderson, Arreguin and Worthington Absent: Council Member Maio - Later that evening the Council considered two other items that called on the Council to consider various alternative maps rather than continue with the lawsuit. Some 5 speakers commented, including George Beier, President Willard Neighborhood Association who had presented yet another map (version 6) to the Council that he stated was only 7 blocks different from the Council approved BSDC map and that contained 2/3s of the student Co-ops, residence halls, and Greek letter houses. He urged Council acceptance of this map rather than let the redistricting controversy go on and on.
Also speaking was Jacqueline McCormick, the author of the BNC neighborhood communities of interest map that had been submitted at the very beginning of the process. The BNC map had less neighborhood divisions than any other map and created a student district that united north and south side students, similar to the United Student District Amendment (USDA) map. Ms McCormick, President of the Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association, stated that when the BNC approved map was originally submitted, she met with BSDC student representatives and asked them why they didn’t approve a map that had more students in it than their map. She quoted them as giving the reason: because students on the north side don’t vote and we want students that will vote. She urged the acceptance of a compromise map.
Council Member Worthington moved and Council Member Arreguin seconded a motion for Council to end the lawsuit and accept the Beier (version 6) compromise map: This motion failed.
Voting Yes: Council Members Anderson, Arreguin and Worthington Voting No: Mayor Bates and Council Member Wozniak Abstaining: Council Members Capitelli, Moore and Wengraf Absent: Council Member Maio Council Member Worthington Moved and Council Member Anderson seconded a motion for the Council to end the lawsuit and accept a map called Minimum Deviation (said to be a map with the most equal population in all districts that has ever been in effect). This motion failed:
Voting Yes: Council Members Anderson, Arreguin and Worthington Voting No: Mayor Bates and Council Members Capitelli, Moore, Wengraf, and Wozniak Absent: Council Member Maio
- April 30, 2014: Judge Evelio Grillo’s decision was released in the late afternoon on this date. In brief, it said that the Council District boundaries shown in the BSDC map will be used for the November 2014 election, at which the question of whether the BSDC map should be approved or rejected will be decided by the voters.
- Judge Grillo’s 35-page decision is slow-going, but these are the pertinent points:
- The court would not consider using the 2002 District boundaries because
of its serious constitutional concerns over the current unequal populations in the Districts.
- The court cited a previous court decision that
any decision should recognize the basic rule that reapportionment is primarily a legislative task, undertaken by this court only when circumstances permit no alternative
and that this court
…must recognize that the City Council, who is responsible for determining a redistricting plan pursuant to the City Charter, has approved the BSDC plan and voted to reject the USDA plan.
- The court considered proposed alternative plans (MAPMINDS, Minimum Deviation and USDA maps) as to whether they would somehow be less disruptive than using the BSDC map for the November election. The court found
The MAPMINDS plan was presented to the City Council in 2011, prior to the passage of Measure R, and therefore it has not been analyzed by the City for compliance with Measure R or presented to the public for discussion since the passage of Measure R. Likewise, the Minimum Deviation plan was only recently presented to the City Council, and therefore has not been through the proposed redistricting map process either. Although the USDA map was vetted to the City Council and discussed in light of the criteria set forth under Measure R, it was voted on and rejected by the City Council. In contrast, the BSDC map was timely presented to the City Council as a proposal for redistricting in 2013, was analyzed by City staff, presented at City Council meeting for public discussion and thereafter approved by the City Council.
The court then looked at the displacement of residents and how that effected their voting cycle. The City had done an analysis of this factor using the BSDC plan and the Eric Panzer-Edge Simplicity plan and found that in the “Student District” far fewer voters would have to change districts under the BSDC plan and there was not sufficient evidence to find that this is a significant factor to consider.
Thus, after considering all the maps that have been presented to the court…the court finds that the BSDC map, or the City Council approved plan, is the one that best complies with meeting the mandates of equal protection and minimizing any disruption to the election process. The Minimum Deviation plan has not been adopted because it was presented to the City Council only a month ago, and does not appear to have been vetted through the public process. The court regarded this lack of going through the public process as an “important factor” but that were the court to adopt Minimum Deviation, it would be inserting itself into the “political thicket” in order to determine otherwise, which trial courts have been cautioned not to do.
- This left the court to decide between the BSDC map and the USDA amendment map which were both vetted to the City Council and for comment by the public. The court points out that the BSDC map was submitted in July 2013, the beginning of the process, while the USDA came later as an amendment but that both
arguably meet the same criteria and have de minimis population variation. Thus, the only difference remaining is that the City Council voted to approve the BSDC plan and reject the USDA plan.
- It was argued that the City had “unclean hands” in the delays that happened, but the court concludes
While it is regrettable that the City did not come to the court sooner…the court cannot conclude from the evidence that the City’s decision to hold over the vote on whether to repeal the Ordinance or place the referendum on the ballot, from February 25, 2014 to March 11, 2014 was an unreasonable delay. The Mayor stated that he wanted additional time to discuss this issue, and Real Parties in Interest have not presented any evidence to show otherwise. It also appears that the City Council’s decision to adopt the BSDC plan and reject the USDA plan was the result of an open process that has been subject to review and comment from the public.
- The court would not consider using the 2002 District boundaries because
Does this mean the redistricting wars are over? Given the history of this matter, BNC has to honestly say — we’re not sure. One thing we do know for sure, is that there are a number of mightily upset people — those who believe the process was deliberately manipulated to ensure that only the BSDC map would be approved, those who believe that a legitimate referendum process was hijacked, those who believe that over $30,000 was wasted, and those who simply cannot understand why a compromise map couldn’t be selected and avoid all of this anxiety and stress.
Actually, BNC would like to hear from the neighborhoods as to what you are thinking. We want to hear from you whether you think this ending was exactly right or terribly wrong. This redistricting stuff is very hard to wade through and maybe only a few neighborhoods really cared. Or, maybe, and we’ve been hearing a few rumbles about this, maybe it is time to think about some actual reforms — do we need fewer districts and some at-large seats, or maybe go back to all at-large representation on the Council, or would term limits bring fresh thinking, or would a so-called “independent” commission on redistricting be the way to avoid such messes in the future, but how does one achieve “independence” in a commission that probably would have to have each member appointed on an individual basis by each Council Member?
BNC would like to hold a conversation with neighborhoods about this and a good place to begin that conversation would be at the Neighborhood Preservation Forum being planned for June 7th! We’ll see you there, but don’t forget you can also send your comments to newsletter@berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com. In publishing comments, or tallying results, each response will be confidential unless you specifically give us permission to use your name and/or neighborhood organization.