I’ll write more about the forum next week, but for those who wanted to attend but couldn’t, I don’t want to make you wait to see what happened. Please enjoy the full video of the event below. I apologize for the somewhat uneven quality.

I’m still digesting the forum from last Wednesday (9 candidates is a lot to process!), so today, I’m going to talk instead about a different Mayoral forum I watched recently. Totally randomly, while working on a project unrelated to this blog, I stumbled across this video of a 2006 Oakland Mayor debate sponsored by the Alameda County Democratic Lawyers Club. Of course, I had to watch it. For those find themselves similarly compelled, I have reposted all the video below.

It was kind of strange watching it and being reminded of how different things were just four years ago. Questions covered building the economy, how Oakland should address development on the waterfront (the Oak to Ninth project was a super hot issue at the time), crime reduction, the poverty problem, mitigating the fallout of the Raiders deal, improving opportunities for young people in Oakland, disaster preparedness, and how to better brand the City.

Ignacio De La Fuente went first with the opening remarks, and started off by complaining about the format — apparently, the candidates were all given the questions in advance — and how that leads to scripted answers.

That got me thinking about debate formats. I’m not sure how I feel about giving people questions in advance. I mean, I understand the concern about scripted answers. You want candidates to demonstrate the knowledge they have, and thinking on your feet is of course an important skill. But on the other hand, I don’t really like the idea that the point of a candidate forum is to like, catch people by surprise. Ooh! Gotcha! You don’t know anything about subject X and now you look stupid.

I mean, nobody’s going to be an expert on everything, so if you actually want to know where a candidate stands on something, you might as well give them the time to make sure they have a position and can answer your question coherently.

It’s like how two years ago at the City Council debates the League of Women Voters hosted, they asked everybody if they would support a comprehensive records management program for the City and the hiring of a certified records manager to be in charge of it, and everyone was like “Um, yeah. Sure, I support that.” But it was totally obvious that nobody had any idea what the hell the question was even about. And then of course Jane Brunner spends like two years throwing a temper tantrum about the League’s efforts to get the City to actually create a records management program (this was finally approved in July). And Rebecca Kaplan at a Council meeting in January displayed a distressing amount of contempt for the concept of putting a well-trained professional in the position, going went on about how she doesn’t see any reason why we would need to recruit a certified records manager instead of just picking anyone from the City’s existing employee pool to do the job.

Anyway, I see why people might think that giving questions in advance might result in a situation where statements are crafted to be as inoffensive as possible, but the fact is that if a candidate just wants to dissemble about everything, they’re gonna do it whether they got to see the question beforehand or not. I just don’t really think the goal of a debate should be to find out who is the best off the cuff speaker. Of course, it’s possible I just think that because I am terrible at answering any question without having plenty of time to think about it, and tend to sound like a babbling idiot when people ask me things.

When it was Ron Dellums’s turn to open, he informed the audience that despite apparently having received all the questions in advance, he was “going off the cuff.” Because that’s exactly what everyone wants in a Mayor, right? Someone who has an opportunity to prepare for something, and doesn’t because they think they’re too good for it. I mean, apparently that is what people want, since everyone laughed hysterically and clapped at that line. Oh, and also I guess cause he won.

But really, this is something that has always bothered me about Dellums, and I don’t think I’ve actually ever complained about it here. Crazy, I know. But people are always talking about how impressive it is that he speaks so well without notes, and I have always thought that’s kind of a bunch of bullshit. I mean, yes, he does sound eloquent, but when he does that he just spews all these words and never actually says anything. It’s just pretty sounding jibberish. I mean, this was the beginning of his statement:

Master of ceremonies, my distinguished colleagues, and ladies and gentlemen, it’s both an honor and a privilege to be before you, and I am proud to be before you as a candidate for the Mayor of Oakland at a very significant time in the evolution of life in this City, in this Country, in this world and secondly because this is a significant moment in the civic life of this coummunity.

What the hell is that? It is so many words for saying absolutely nothing. And I know what you’re all thinking. Gee V, you’re one to talk. But while I readily admit that parsimony is not my strong suit, I’d like to think that if I had only had three minutes to make a pitch for something, I could be a little more careful.

Oh, and then at the end, after saying nothing, he complained that that he couldn’t possibly talk about everything he was going to do in only three minutes. So there you go.

But what struck me most about the debate, especially in contrast to the Sierra Club one from the other night, was how dramatically different all the candidates were. Like I said, I’ll get into Wednesday’s forum next week and look in some detail at the way different candidates answered different questions. And some people clearly performed better than others. But overall, at both this forum and the public safety one I went to last month, you were hearing pretty similar answers to most of the questions from all of the candidates.

This one wasn’t like that at all. I mean, Ignacio De La Fuente kept hammering on growing the City’s tax base and economic development in response to like, every question, while Nancy Nadel was all about affordable housing and raising the minimum wage and inclusionary zoning and providing health care for the uninsured and all those sorts of things and how the City has been too focused on improving things for property owners and if she was Mayor, her focus would be on the 60% of Oaklanders who do not own property. Dellums, for the most part, just didn’t say anything. Model city, model city. Oh, and that we’re going to be terrorized by bird flu any day now and that the Golden State Warriors should be renamed the Oakland Warriors and that gas is going to be $10 a gallon soon and therefore nobody will want to live in the suburbs.

On the question about crime, Ignacio De La Fuente was all about how we have to admit we have a problem and need more police and crime has to go down and how the Neighborhood Law Corps is so great. And Nancy Nadel went on this long thing about how the first thing we have to do is figure out how to separate all the different types of crime and then get the State to reform the prison system.

And then there with the question about branding, Nancy Nadel complained that it’s Jerry Brown’s fault Oakland has a bad reputation because he was trying to make Oakland look bad on purpose and that the media is really mean and we need to change our logo to something that has people on it instead of a tree. And then Ignacio De La Fuente was just like, we can improve Oakland’s image by actually dealing with our problems and improving the quality of life here. Dellums, of course was just like, model city.

I don’t know if it’s better or worse to have a bunch of candidates who seem to broadly agree about most things, and then you get to pick the one you think would best be able to implement them versus a few choices with clear ideological differences. I suppose that if you disagree with what pretty much all the candidates we have now are saying, then that definitely sucks for you. One thing I’m definitely sure of. Debates are a lot more interesting to watch when there are clear ideological differences between candidates.

I don’t know. I suppose I don’t really have any grand conclusion about what I learned from watching the debate. I did make me remember why I used to like Ignacio De La Fuente so much, which was nice since I have found him recently to be kind of one-note and whiny. Mostly I just thought it was kind of a fun little break from our depressing current situation to go back and kind of think of how things could have been.

Now, I have never owned a car since I’ve lived in Oakland. In fact, I have never once even driven a car in Oakland. So where you are and are not allowed to park isn’t something I spend a whole lot of time thinking about. I actually only learned that you weren’t allowed to park on that part of Lakeshore on the weekends like nine months ago, when someone brought it up during a conversation that I think was about silly outdated laws or something. Or maybe it was about sideshows. I can’t remember. Anyway.

Apparently, there used to be this big problem with people cruising around the Lake on weekends. People used to come to Oakland from all over the place to drive around Lake Merritt and cause trouble. Or something like that. The friend who was telling me about this had a more colorful description of the situation, but since my memory isn’t what it used to be, I’m afraid I can’t recall the whole thing, and you’ll have to settle for just sharing the drier version from the staff report (PDF):

In 1985, traffic congestion, drug dealing, panhandling and cruising along Lakeshore Avenue were concerns of the residents and the Oakland Police Department (OPD). Today, these concerns no longer exist, and several community members have contacted the City requesting modification of the parking restrictions currently in place. OPD agrees that these limits are no longer necessary.

A few months ago, Councilmembers Pat Kernighan and Nancy Nadel sent out requests in their e-mail newsletters for people to share their thoughts on whether we should remove the no parking restriction on Lakeshore or not. Not having strong feelings on the subject either way, I did not respond. 390 other people did, and 79% of them said that they thought parking should be allowed. If I had bothered to respond, I probably would have said that I thought it should be allowed also, because, you know, why not? Cruising isn’t a problem anymore. But really, I didn’t give the issue a whole lot of thought.

But as it turns out, some other people did, and two of them felt strongly enough about the subject to come to the Public Works Committee on Tuesday morning and speak against the removal of the no parking restriction. When the first of them came up and started talking about how he was against it, I totally rolled my eyes. Like, get over it dude, I don’t like cars either, but learn to pick your battles because this is just not that big a deal. Who cares if a few more people can park by the Lake?

But then as I listened to him, and the other speaker that followed, I found myself thinking that they actually had some pretty solid points. And by the end, I was not so sure that allowing the new parking around the Lake on weekends was such a good idea after all, and was definitely persuaded that at the very least, we should not be so cavalier about making decisions like this. Then I started feeling totally guilty for just assuming the City should allow the parking in the first place.

You guys should watch them. I showed the video to a friend the other night, one who is also generally not inclined to side with the cars, and he had the exact same reaction as I first had when I brought up the subject. But I was like “No, no, just watch this. It will only take a few minutes.” And he begrudgingly consented, and by the end, he was like “Hey. They actually have a good point.”

Maybe it’s okay to let people park on Lakeshore on weekends, maybe it’s not such a great idea. But it really is the sort of decision that deserves more thought than “A bunch of people told us they want more parking. I guess we should do it.” Of course if you ask people if they want more free parking, they are going to say that they do. That’s not a rational basis for transportation decision making.

The staff report (PDF) about this is like, two pages. And basically all it says is that they banned parking on the weekend in the 80s and now people want it so we should do it. But how does this fit into our other goals? Will there be an increased risk to bicyclists due to doorings, as the speaker said? How does this relate to the reduced auto usage goals that will be mandated in the energy and climate action plan?

But the point they made that got me the most was about how it may impact the experience of visiting the Lake. This is being sold as a way to allow more people to enjoy the Lake. But is surrounding a park with cars really the best way to make Lake Merritt’s natural beauty more enjoyable? I mean, look at this picture.

This is what we’ve got going on over on my side of the Lake, and every single time I walk by it, I get all stressed out and angry and completely grossed out. I mean, it’s disgusting. And it completely takes you out of the experience of enjoying the grass and the trees and the water that you’ve been walking past.

I’m not saying that it’s exactly the same thing. I understand that what they want to do on Lakeshore is allow parking on the street, not two rows of cars on the freaking sidewalk, but I do think that this decision is a good example of how the City really needs to put more thought into the choices and rules we make about parking in general, and also about how we want to encourage people to use open space.

The Committee passed the proposal, and At-large Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan suggested (in response to other comments people had been making about the three hour time limit) that maybe the best solution for parking around the Lake would be to have no time limits and just meter it, which would encourage turnover but also allow people if who so desire to come and park and stay at the Lake for a long time without having to worry about getting a ticket. So now staff is going to look into this area and the idea of metering there as part of the Citywide parking study.

The full video of the discussion is above, if you’re interested.

Measure DD was a nearly $200 million bond measure meant to finance improvements to Oakland’s creeks and waterways, public recreation facilities, waterfront parks, and of course, Lake Merritt. It’s Measure DD we have to thank for Lake Chalet at the Boathouse and the reconfiguration of El Embarcadero.

Now, if you were one of the 70,000 people who voted yes on Measure DD, it’s possible you did so because you love Studio One or Children’s Fairyland and you wanted to see them improved. Maybe you were really excited about the East Oakland Sports Center. Or maybe you voted for it because you’re just super concerned about Lake Merritt’s water quality. But if you’re like most Oaklanders, chances are you said yes because of this:

Click to enlarge

That would the the transformation of the world’s shortest freeway between Lake Merritt and the Kaiser Convention Center into a pleasant, walkable, tree-lined, 6 lane boulevard. The 12th Street reconfiguration was Measure DD’s marquee project. When you hear people complain about how they voted for DD and nothing’s happened on it in 8 years and they’re never going to vote for a bond measure in Oakland again because of it’s been such a waste, they’re often referring to their frustration over seeing no progress on this particular project.

So I’m sure you guys will all be absolutely delighted to learn that the 12st Street reconstruction actually is about to finally happen. Well, maybe. Maybe not.

The City put the project out for bid and had hoped to award a contract for the reconstruction project a few years ago, but they only got one response, which came in at about $10 million more than the City had to spend. So it was back to the drawing board.

Or more accurately, back to the computer, to look for new funding sources. And lo and behold, they found one (PDF) – $13.3 million from the Federal Highway Bridge Program. Two years later, the funds were finally secured, the project went back out to bid, came back with more responses, and on February 9th, the City Council’s Public Works Committee was asked to award a contract (PDF) so we can finally build the damn thing. Simple, right?

As it turns out, not so much. You see, in Oakland, we do this thing called local hire for businesses contracting with the City, where we require 50% of the work on contracted projects to be performed by Oakland residents. The idea is that when we spend money that we get from Oakland taxpayers, we should make sure it helps create jobs for Oakland residents. The merits of any specific local hire policy are, of course, debatable, but conceptually, it isn’t unreasonable, especially in a City with such a frighteningly high unemployment rate.

Problem is, when you’re using Federal money, you don’t get to use your own rules about hiring on projects, you have to use theirs. Federal guidelines require that 30% of the work performed on a project be completed by minority employees (on a craft by craft basis), and they also specifically say that you aren’t allowed to mandate local hire.

Do you see where this is going? That’s right, this contract (PDF) the City wanted to award for the 12th Street reconstruction would have no local hire requirements. And as I’m sure you can imagine, some Councilmembers were none to pleased to hear that.

Specifically, District 6 Councilmember Desley Brooks and District 3 Councilmember Nancy Nadel extremely displeased to hear about the lack of local hire. Desley Brooks asked about a dozen times why the City couldn’t just unbundle the project so that there would be one contract for part of the project to be funded with City money and a different contract for part of the project to be funded with Federal money, and even though staff said every single time that doing so not possible at this point, she just kept asking. Calling the idea of spending tens of millions of City dollars on a project that doesn’t guarantee jobs for Oakland residents “unconscionable,” she insisted she would not vote for the contract, and that was that.

Nadel, out to lunch as usual, said that she had no idea there was federal money being used on the project and wanted to know when that decision had been made. (Hello! When you voted for it (PDF), lady!) Although she expressed strong concerns about the lack of local hire, she took a somewhat more pragmatic approach than Brooks, saying she wanted more information about what would kind of time and costs we’d be looking at if we decided to unbundle the project and restart the Federal funding application process, and that she’d make a decision once she had more information.

District 2 Councilmember Pat Kernighan, no doubt thinking about how desperately she’d like to be able to point construction work on the bridge while campaigning for re-election this year, was adamant that the project can’t wait a minute longer than it already has, local hire or no. And At-large Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, ever the pragmatist, noted that the issue of local hire being limited by Federal dollars isn’t unique to this one project, and should be addressed on a broader policy level instead of quibbled over on individual projects. She pointed out that other some jurisdictions substitute local hiring requirements with something called “impact area hiring” when dealing with Federally funded projects, which does not violate Federal guidelines, and suggested that the Council explore a similar policy so we don’t have this problem in the future.

In the end, they decided to have the question return to Committee, and it will be back on Tuesday morning (PDF). The supplemental report (PDF) on the item basically reiterates the point made repeatedly at the previous meeting that there’s no way to unbundle the project to allow for local hire without starting the whole process completely over.

So what will happen? Will the Committee, and later, the Council, move this long-awaited project forward? Or will they decide that it’s not worth doing without the local jobs guarantee? Whatever the outcome on Tuesday, we can be relatively sure that this won’t be the last we hear about the issue. Darrel Carey of the East Bay Small Business Council made that abundantly clear at the last meeting:

The Public Works Committee will take up the issue again this Tuesday, February 23rd (PDF). The meeting starts at 10:30, although the 12th Street project is last on the agenda. If you can’t make it down to City Hall, you can always catch the fireworks on KTOP.

The League of Women Voters can attest that Oakland City government lacks the tools to ensure that its records are easy for City staff and citizens to access and use. The Public Ethics Commission fields numerous complaints that have to do with missing records or failure to produce records. Last year this pattern of complaints led the PEC to propose to the City Council revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance (PDF) designed to set uniform records standards for the city. Despite strong support by the City Attorney and City Auditor, the Council’s Finance and Management Committee deferred the issue pending more study.

The proposal is finally coming back (PDF) to the Finance and Management Committee on December 15 (12 noon, City Hall Hearing Room 1). The League will be there to urge the adoption of the PEC’s recommendations (PDF). Oakland needs a framework for city policies and procedures, a systematic process for dealing with records that will be used throughout city government.

Basic records management is required by the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which requires that all public agencies make all their records, with some very few exceptions, accessible to the public. In order for records to be accessible, the city staff needs to be able to find them. The citizens of Oakland have a right to expect that their city government can and will comply with the requirements of the CPRA.

While there may be costs for putting a comprehensive records management system in place, having records in an efficient, easily accessible order will save the city money in the long run. Staff will spend less time searching for records and responding to complaints, and more time serving the public.

We can also expect savings from timely collection of records necessary to defend the city against lawsuits which now result all too often in unnecessarily long proceedings and/or unfavorable judgments and settlements.

In order to enact strong records management the city needs a strong policy – the records management ordinance changes to the Sunshine Ordinance – from the City Council and a strong commitment from the administration that it will enforce the policy. The City Clerk has made her statement of commitment by hiring a professional records manager to oversee the program. However, the records manager does not operate in a vacuum. Without full cooperation from all city departments, the records manager will not be able to do his or her job. The City Administrator must make a strong statement that records management has his full backing, and make it a high priority for everyone who does work for the city.

The proposal before the Finance and Management Committee on December 15

• streamlines and clarifies the definition of a city record to be “ all recorded information, regardless of media format or physical characteristics, that are produced, received, owned or used” by the city in connection with its affairs or legal obligations;
• adds the City Attorney and City Auditor to the Records Management Committee;
• provides for a review of the records management program by the Public Ethics Commission, with a public hearing;
• clarifies the roles of the City Clerk (development and implementation of records management program for all city elected officials), agency and department heads, and the Public Ethics Commission (authorized to investigate and report on specific allegations of non-compliance with records management program);
• clarifies that all city records are to be transferred to the City Clerk’s office upon termination of a contract or of an elected official’s term of office.

We need to let the City Council and City Administrator know that we expect them to follow up on this sane piece of legislation. We’re hoping for a good showing at the Finance and Management Committee next Tuesday, but everyone can send an email to or call the members of the committee:

• Jean Quan, committee chair (jquan@oaklandnet.com, 238-7004)
• Ignacio De La Fuente (idelafuente@oaklandnet.com, 238-7005)
• Pat Kernighan (pkernighan@oaklandnet.com, 238-7002)
• Nancy Nadel (nnadel@oaklandnet.com, 238-7003)

Let the committee members — and the entire Council — know that you want Oakland to operate in a transparent, professional manner, and that the enactment of a strong records management ordinance is a crucial first step.

Condo conversions were a big controversy a few years ago, but since then, have pretty much faded off the radar of everyone but professional affordable housing activists and developers. Now the issue is back, sort of.

Councilmembers Pat Kernighan and Rebecca Kaplan have introduced a proposal to make some changes to Oakland’s condo conversion rules (PDF), which will be considered at today’s Community and Economic Development Committee meeting (PDF).

Basically, sometimes apartment building owners decide they don’t want to own an apartment anymore and would like to turn their building into condominiums and sell the units off individually. In Oakland, however, this is not the easiest thing to do for most buildings. A 1981 law, designed to ensure a robust supply of rental housing, prohibits the conversion of an apartment building greater than four units into condominiums unless you have something called “conversion rights.”

In practice, conversion rights are a little silly. Basically, when someone builds a new apartment building, each unit gives them one conversion right. Then if someone else wants to convert their apartment building into condos, they go and buy the conversion rights needed to do so. So if I have a 20 unit apartment building I want to turn into condos, I have to go find someone who built at least 20 rental units and buy the conversion rights from him. In certain parts of the City, you can only buy conversion rights from buildings that are in the same area. The idea is, again, to guarantee that we preserve an adequate supply of rental housing, and to protect tenants from displacement if their apartments are converted.

The proposal (PDF) introduced by Councilmembers Kernighan and Kaplan would create a “Pilot Program” that allows up to 300 units in “higher rent” apartment buildings (buildings where the average rent for new tenants in the past two years has been over $2100 a month) to be converted over a period of two years without purchasing conversion rights. Instead, the building owner would pay the City a $15,000 per-unit fee for the conversions. Then after two years, it would be over.

Existing tenants in the buildings that want to convert would all have to be offered a rent controlled lifetime lease and units where tenants choose to take the lifetime lease could not be sold. If tenants choose to move instead of taking the lifetime lease, they wouldn’t get any money to help pay re-location costs. If tenants want to buy their apartment as a condo, they would get a 10% discount.

The fees paid to the City for the conversion rights would go to rehab of existing affordable housing. Additionally, the proposal would create more money for the City by creating a bunch of new condos, which will each be paying property taxes, transfer tax when they are sold, and parcel taxes.

There are two other features of the proposal, which I won’t get into that much right now. One would make it easier to convert some Tenant-in-Common properties to condos, and the other would clarify existing law to make it clear that if you build a new rental apartment building and then decide you want to convert it to condos, you’re allowed to use your own conversion rights to do so.

Anyway, Councilmembers Jane Brunner, Nancy Nadel, and Jean Quan do not like the proposal, and have introduced one of their own. Unlike Councilmembers Kernighan and Kaplan, they do not offer any explanation their rationale or analysis of the impacts of their proposed legislation. Instead, they submitted a simple chart outlining the highlights of some plan they want staff to turn into legislation. You can read the whole thing here (PDF). The key points are:

• Expand existing condo conversion ordinance so that it applies to buildings of 4 units or less, which it currently does not
• Cap conversions at 150 units per year and 150 units per Council district over 5 years
• 6 months notification, 15% discount, lifetime leases and first right of refusal for purchase for existing tenants in buildings to be converted
• The same inclusionary zoning proposal that keeps coming up before the Council and failing

The plan proposed by Councilmembers Brunner, Nadel, and Quan is not really worth commenting on now. I have written extensively in the past about inclusionary zoning, which is a tired, counterproductive, and failed concept (and appears to now be illegal for rental housing, although rental IZ is not part of their current proposal), and also totally irrelevant to the condo conversion issue currently on the table.

As for the limited conversion proposal from Councilmembers Kernighan and Kaplan, I find little to complain about. A supplemental report from CEDA staff (PDF) raises some legitimate questions about the proposed definition of “higher rent buildings” and potential obstacles to assessing the proposed impact fee, and those issues certainly deserve further discussion at Committee.

The report further criticizes the proposal for acting in isolation, instead of being part of a “comprehensive housing strategy,” which I think is just ridiculous. No, this isn’t a comprehensive housing strategy, it’s limited legislation intended to address limited issues, which is just fine. Not every single thing the City does has to be part of some overarching, long-term plan to address some giant issue. When you insist on doing things that way, nothing ever gets done.

Sure, I think it might be a little silly to go to all this trouble basically so one luxury apartment building can be converted into condos, but that’s really the fault of the people trying to tack all these other issues onto something limited and very specific. Like six people forwarded me this “action alert” from EBHO yesterday that hysterically claims:

The Oakland People’s Housing Coalition (OPHC) opposes Councilmember Kernighan’s condo conversion proposal as a bad deal for the city and a bad deal for tenants and affordable housing. Their proposal, if adopted, would create no new housing and would threaten displacement for low-income seniors and people with disabilities.

It doesn’t explain how, of course. The purpose of the condo conversion ordinance is to protect the supply of rental housing that is within the means of most people, and whether you agree with that goal or not, it’s hard to see how the poor renter in Oakland are going to be harmed by having ultra-expensive apartment buildings on the Lake become ultra-expensive condo buildings on the Lake. The protections for building’s existing tenants seem sufficient to me, although some form of relocation assistance would be nice and I don’t think too burdensome for the building owner.

The deplorable condition of much of Oakland’s affordable rental housing is as serious an issue as the supply, and to the extent that this proposal can supply some funds for rehabilitation, I think it’s a good thing. Additionally, the City’s revenue problems are not going away anytime in the near future, and this also provides a way to bring in more money for the City (PDF) (I think the estimates in that document are probably a little inflated, but the point remains that it’s a significant amount of money).

The Community and Economic Development Committee meets at 2 PM this afternoon. If you can’t make it down to City Hall, you can always catch it on KTOP, Comcast cable Channel 10 and available streaming online. I will be tweeting the meeting, so for real-time updates, you can always check out twitter.com/vsmoothe or follow the #oakmtg hashtag to get updates from others as well. (If anyone else tweets it, that is. Sometimes I’m the only one.)

I love the Layover. It’s been great to watch downtown transform over the past several years, and have all this wonderful new nightlife. But it has always bothered me a little bit that every new place that opens is so fancy. Penelope is very nice, and their spicy cocktails are delicious, but I’ve always just felt more comfortable hanging out somewhere a little more low key. The Layover is exactly the type of place I’ve been wishing would open downtown for years, and if you haven’t been yet, I strongly encourage you to go check it out. (It’s at 15th and Franklin. There is also a very flattering article in today’s Trib about it.)

Anyway, the reason I mention the Layover not just because I love it, but because this picture I snapped last night provides a nice example of a very common style of bar these days, where a DJ provides background music, but there is no dance floor.

This sort of bar currently exists in a legal grey area. The issue is whether or not such an establishment should be required to obtain a cabaret license if they are going to have DJs. Some do, others don’t. Some apply for one, only to find themselves sucked into an expensive and seemingly endless bureaucratic nightmare. Others send the City letters quoting the code governing cabarets and arguing that they should be exempt, and just cross their fingers that nobody will try to bother them about it. Others are simply told straight up by the City that they don’t need one. Still others do nothing and hope to fly under the radar. (I have not asked the owners of the Layover what route they choose, so I don’t know if they have a cabaret license or not, although I don’t remember seeing anything about a hearing.)

For the most part, the City has agreed that if all you’re doing is letting DJs play background music without a dance floor, then you don’t need a cabaret license. After all, the City already has regulatory power over bars through permitting alcohol sales, so there’s really no need to add another layer of hassle. But as we all know, the City can be infuriatingly inconsistent, and every so often, the fun police will do a little run around town issuing warnings (and sometimes tickets) to such businesses for acting as an unlicensed cabaret. (In one case last year, a bartender was threatened with a cabaret ticket after an office saw him changing a CD behind the bar.)

DJ bars are not the only type of business unfairly impacted by the City’s confusing cabaret law. Coffee shops that want to offer low key live entertainment may also find themselves subject to the annoying and expensive cabaret permitting process. Requiring a cabaret permit for any live music leads to ridiculous situations like the one Piedmont Avenue’s Caffe Trieste found themselves in a few years ago, where they wanted to have people occasionally sing opera music, but didn’t qualify for a permit because they were located too close to the library. The situation was eventually resolved by an amendment to the law (PDF) that allows the City Administrator’s office to overrule the 300 feet from a school or library requirement at their discretion, but the underlying absurdity of the law remained unchanged.

Anyway, the good news is that the City Council is finally talking about cabaret reform. A revision to the cabaret ordinance (PDF) proposed by Councilmembers Nancy Nadel and Rebecca Kaplan will be discussed by the Council’s Public Safety Committee on Tuesday. The bad news is that the proposed reforms are stupid.

Here is our current definition of a cabaret:

A cabaret shall be construed to include any place where the general public is admitted where entertainment is furnished by or for any patron or guest present upon the premises including but not limited to singing vaudeville and dancing and where liquid refreshments or foods are sold, provided however that any place where entertainment is furnished by the mechanical or electronic reproduction or pre-recorded music or radio broadcasts or by motion picture shall not be construed to be a cabaret within the meaning of this section unless dancing privileges are afforded in connection therewith.

Clearly, the law is antiquated. You might think that now that we’re finally getting around to revising the ordinance, it might be a good opportunity to strike references to, oh, I don’t know, vaudeville from our municipal code. As if.

What is need is a fairly simple revision of the law to clarify what is and what is not a cabaret. Special cabaret restrictions and regulation makes sense for the City, since the large crowds generated by live entertainment can lead to special problems. The easiest way to address the inconsistent enforcement of cabaret rules would to amend the definition so that it only applies to large venues with dance floors or amplified live music.

Nadel and Kaplan’s recommendation is twofold. One, that businesses with an occupancy rate of 50 people or fewer and whose primary zoning is not “entertainment,” will not have to get a cabaret permit. That part makes sense.

The second half doesn’t. Instead, these businesses will now have to obtain something called a “small cabaret exemption.” The proposed cost to apply for the exemption is $600, with an annual $250 renewal fee.

So basically, this proposal takes a group of businesses that were not required to get a cabaret license under most interpretations of existing law, and imposes on them a brand new regulation and annual cost. The staff report estimates that between 50 and 100 businesses would be forced to apply for the new “exemption.”

Cabaret reform should be an opportunity to make it easier for nightlife businesses to operate. Instead, we are talking about making it even more difficult. I just don’t get it. The Council is always talking about how they want to make Oakland more friendly to small businesses. Any small business owner will tell you that the best thing the City can do to make life better for them is to just leave them alone. I doubt you could find a single one willing to say that the City can help them by demanding a couple hundred extra dollars per year.

Will the Public Safety Committee care? I don’t know, probably not. After all, the last time cabaret licenses came up, when there was a proposal to double the permit fee from $300 to $600, Committee member Jean Quan’s response was:

They can afford it. Cabarets make a lot of money.

The Public Safety Committee meets at 4 PM on Tuesday (PDF). At the same time, they will discuss a proposal to allow certain cabarets to obtain permits that would allow them to stay open past two (read about it in the Oakbook). That idea also came up a few years ago, and back then, the Committee wasn’t having it. Jean Quan said then that she would rather see the law changed to force them to close earlier. Sigh.

In case you haven’t visited lately, right now it looks like this:

It’s a nice enough park, I guess. I enjoy sitting on the lawn there and reading sometimes. But it is rather run down. It’s got this kind of awful abandoned storage building that looks like it’s about to collapse, which certainly does not help the overall feeling of disrepair at the park.

And then there’s this really depressing (and cheap) looking “play structure”.

But all that is going to change soon (PDF)! They’ll be demolishing the storage building, installing a new (and hopefully less pathetic) play structure, moving the basketball court, and creating a dog park for both large and small dogs. A dog park! Exactly what Old Oakland needs!

I know what you’re thinking. Didn’t the City just gut public works funding to the point where we’re basically no longer taking care of our parks? The answer is yes. But the shortfall that caused those cuts was in the LLAD and the General Fund. The park improvements will be paid out of redevelopment money. This, of course, highlights one of the frustrating things about redevelopment, which is that it provides money you can use to build stuff, but leaves you with nothing to maintain it. But that’s an issue for another day.

Anyway, it’s not just Jefferson Park getting lucky this year. Improvements are on the way for Chinatown’s Lincoln Square Park as well. Lincoln Park, in case you haven’t been, is basically just a giant block of asphalt with a play structure and some swings scattered around the edges.

Don’t get me wrong – the play structure is actually pretty cool.

And with all the kids in that neighborhood, it’s crowded pretty much all the time. But it’s hard to deny the park could use some help. Which it will be receiving (PDF) in the form of new lighting, ball courts, a multipurpose synthetic tufts field, and game tables!

I thought of all this, well, actually because some small funding allocations for these park improvements on next week’s agendas (FYI, the Malonga Casquelourd Center for the Arts (PDF) and the Chinese Gardens (PDF) are also getting help) reminded me that I’ve been meaning to mention them. But I’m writing about it because it gives me the perfect excuse to pimp a cool exhibit going on at the Oakland Art Gallery right now.

ProArts and 10,000 Steps have put together a multimedia installation showcasing the history of downtown’s four historic parks (Madison, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Lafayette), which you can check out at the Oakland Art Gallery (150 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza) between now and October 9th.

I could go on about it, but Tina Tamale actually has a really sweet blog up about it right now, so instead, I’m just going to encourage you to head over there and read her pitch for visiting.

click to enlarge

There were congratulations going around for everyone. However, not everyone involved with the success of Measure DD and the Boat House was recognized as they should have been. That is, there are a number of people and organizations who have been deeply involved and committed the restoration of Lake Merritt who were left out as the ‘thank you’s” and “great job’s!” were flying around.

Those groups include the Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt (CALM) and the Measure DD Community Coalition. Both of these groups include many long-time Oakland residents who have committed time, energy, and love, to Measure DD – even before there was a Measure DD. How can this be?

It was members of CALM who, in 2002, drafted and presented the first conceptual drawings for the realignment of 12th Street. The 12th Street piece will remove traffic lanes from “the world’s shortest freeway,” reclaim park land and reconnect it to Lake Merritt, add public space, and connect the new sidewalks and paths between Lakeshore Avenue and Lakeside Drive. That initial design concept, presented to the community by CALM in 2002, was adopted by the City of Oakland and included in the Lake Merritt Master Plan. Here’s the Lake Merritt Master Plan for 12th Street: http://tinyurl.com/mx9tv8

As noted at the Boat House Re-dedication, it was important that the Lake Merritt Master Plan not collect dust on a shelf. It was with the completion of the Lake Merritt Master Plan, spurred the communities’ interest in implementing the 12th Street realignment, that Measure DD was proposed as a means of funding the master plan. Projects in all parts of Oakland were included in the meaure such as Studio One in North Oakland and the East Oakland Sports Complex, which recently broke ground.

As we all know, Measure DD was a very popular bond measure, passing by an 80%-20% vote in 2002. The bond will eventually raise nearly $200 million; most Measure DD projects have already been completed.

Once Measure DD passed, the Measure DD Community Coalition was formed to provide oversight, guidance, feedback, etc. on the myriad of Measure DD projects. The Coalition is group of mostly unpaid Oakland residents and organizations who meet regularly with City staff, council member offices, planners, architects, consultants, etc., providing a ‘sounding board’ on Measure DD issues. The Coalition has met regularly since 2004; the Coalition continues meeting even now. You can find information about the Measure DD Coalition here: http://tinyurl.com/mjyf82

The Boat House Re-Dedication was a resounding success – it felt like a very positive milestone had been reached. We all look forward to the completion of 12th Street so that the hard work and inspiration of so many people, recognized or not, will come to fruition.

So how did the hole get so big so fast? Well, first, the budget passed last June assumed a stimulus grant that would fund 140 police officers. We knew at the time we probably wouldn’t get the entire grant, and would have to open up the budget at some point and make up the difference. At this point, we’re expecting to receive funding for only 40.7 of those 140 officers, which leaves us $11.3 million short of where we were hoping to be.

This leaves us with some very unpleasant choices. One, we could go ahead and lay off 100 police officers, but then we’d have to stop collecting Measure Y taxes, which would mean laying off an additional 63 officers, for a total of 163 officers lost, plus giving up significant funding for the Fire Department and violence prevention programs. Since nobody wants to do that, we’re stuck with finding another $11.3 million in cuts elsewhere in the budget.

On top of that, the budget the Council passed assumed $11.92 million in reductions to the Police Department budget, but didn’t say how we were going to do it. Now we have to figure that out, leaving us with $23.22 million to cut. Then, it turns out we may have to repay Measure Y $2.14 million (fallout from Marleen Sacks’s lawsuit), bringing the total amount we need to find to $25.36 million. Fortunately (sort-of), the budget we passed included a $6.62 million surplus, so if use all that money to cover the shortfall, we’re left with $18.74 million to cut. Ouch.

So how are we going to get there? You can read the whole proposal that will come before the Council here (PDF), but here are some of the highlights:

• Savings due to changes in police contract: $8.5 million
• Reduce police overtime: $3.98 million
• Eliminate 4 Neighborhood Service Coordinators: $0.3 million
• Eliminate 7 other non-sworn police department positions: $0.46 million
• Eliminate Rangers (who patrol the parks): $0.21 million
• Ground OPD helicopter: $0.25 million
• Raise police department special event permit fees: $0.09 million
• Close San Antonio Recreation Center: $0.09 million
• Close Main Library 2 days/week: $0.12 million
• Reduce arts grants by 20%: $0.23 million
• Reduce other non-departmental subsidies (Chabot, Zoo, etc.) an additional 10%: $0.3 million
• Begin peak hour parking pilot program: $0.64 million
• Raise expired meter parking fee $10: $0.53 million

There’s also a bunch of other layoffs and elimination or freezing of vacancies scattered across departments in there, for a total of 49.04 FTEs being eliminated, 36.04 of which are currently filled. The proposed layoffs include 12 Public Works positions that had been eliminated in the Mayor’s budget, but were restored by the Council.

Some of these measures are new – closing the San Antonio recreation center and reducing the Main Library to 5 day per week service weren’t on the table before. But a lot of it was proposed in June and rejected by the Council.

The peak hour parking program, which would raise meter fees to $3/hour downtown (which the exception of Chinatown and Jack London Square) from 10am-2pm, would generate a lot of money, as would the increase of the expired meter parking fee to $65. But the Council wasn’t willing to do either of those things before, for fear of hurting businesses with the meter fees and angering residents with the high ticket prices. Given the widespread outrage over the ticket and meter increases they already adopted, it’s hard to imagine anyone on the Council having the stomach to raise them even higher so quickly.

Likewise, the Police Department offers up the Rangers and Neighborhood Service Coordinators (NSCs) for cuts pretty much every time we come back to the budget, but so far, the Council has been pretty adamant about keeping them. Both the Rangers and the NSCs have large numbers of extremely devoted advocates who are quick to raise hell every single time these positions are threatened.

But there simply isn’t enough money to pay for everything, and many services have already been sliced so drastically, it’s tough to imagine where the funds avoid such cuts are going to come from. There was talk in the last budget discussions of sending police back to the airport to save some money, but at least back then, a number of Councilmembers seemed strongly resistant to the idea. Most depressing of all, it’s pretty much certain that this won’t be the worst of it, and we’re going to have to be back at this again several times over the year.

The meeting starts at 5 PM on Tuesday.

Before we get started, let’s have a little refresher on the downtown zoning proposal (PDF), specifically the heights, since that was the main issue of concern last night. Under the plan, downtown is divided into seven height areas. In each of those areas, there are two different height limits. One is the base height. The base of the building can take up the whole lot that the building is built on. For most of the zones, the maximum allowed base height is 85 feet. Depending on what kind of building you have, that’s going to be between 5 and 8 stories. For two of the zones, the maximum base height is 55 feet. For the highest intensity zone, which runs along Broadway, the maximum base height is 120 feet.

The second limit is the called the tower height. This refers to the total height of the building. Portions of buildings above the base are referred to as the tower. Unlike the base, the tower portion of a building cannot take up the entirety of its lot – it has to be smaller. How much smaller depends on which height area you are in. In two height areas, no towers of any sort are permitted. In the other five height areas, the maximum tower heights range from 170 feet to unlimited. Additionally, in each height area, there is a limit to what percentage of the lot size the tower can take up and to how large the floorplate of the tower can be. This chart (PDF) lists all these limits in detail, and the map below shows what parts of downtown are assigned each height area.

I realize that’s probably too small to read. You can click here (PDF) for a larger version.

The purpose of these requirements, which force reduced bulk on the taller portion of buildings to preserve space between buildings for light and air, and also to minimize the shadows cast on the street. I happen to like the shade, and therefore am not much of a fan of the mandated tower and base form, but lots of people came out to various zoning meetings complaining about how they don’t want skyscrapers blocking all the sunlight downtown, and everyone decided this was the best way to address that issue.

Anyway, after more than a year of discussion at the Planning Commission, the new zoning finally came before the City Council last night. Let’s get the outcome out of the way first. The Council passed the zoning as proposed by staff (PDF), with a few changes:

• 14th Street and 13th Street between Madison and Harrison, which staff had proposed to be height area 5 (85 foot base height limit, 400 foot tower height limit) will be “temporarily” zoned as height area 2 (85 foot height limit) until we can complete a study of “view corridors” to the Trib Tower and City Hall
• Lakeside Drive between 14th and 17th, which had been proposed as height area 3 (55 foot base height, 170 foot tower height limit) will become height area 1 (55 foot height limit)
• Any project completing an Environmental Impact Report will have to study whether views of the Trib Tower and City Hall will be impacted by the project
• For 1443 Alice St. and 222 19th Street, two parcels which currently have applications in process for developments that would not conform to the new zoning (but would have been permitted previously), the Council decided not to exempt the lots from the new zoning, as had been suggested at Committee, but instead give direction to the Planning Commission when those projects come up for approval that the Council does not want their non conformance with the new zoning to be held against them, and that they should be considered on their own merits.

Larry Reid and Ignacio De La Fuente voted no, Desley Brooks abstained (all three had supported an earlier, failed motion, that would not have reduced the heights in those areas), and the remainder of the Council voted yes.

The outcome isn’t horrible, but the discussion was exceedingly frustrating. After like an hour of public comment, Nancy Nadel kicked things off by introducing a proposal to reduce heights along Lakeside to 55 feet, which she justified by saying that at the community meetings she had hosted about height limits along the Lake over two years ago, everyone wanted to prohibit tall buildings “except for an occasional seeded person from OBA“, who had been sent “to make sure there wasn’t a consensus.” I know I should be used to it by now, but it really never ceases to amaze me how proud Nadel is to completely dismiss the perspective of everyone who doesn’t agree with her. I mean, it’s one thing to say that people who don’t share your viewpoint are wrong and then explain why you think so- that’s normal. But in her world, if she doesn’t like what you’re saying, you don’t even exist. And for the record, there were plenty of people advocating against height limits at those meetings who live in the area and didn’t have a thing to do with the OBA, they just happen to appreciate density.

Anyway. She went on about how we should take advantage of this opportunity to control building heights so that people who live in historic areas won’t end up feeling like they’re “trapped” in a “cavern” all the time. Ugh.

Pat Kernighan started off strong, pointing out that there’s more to the zoning proposal than just height limits, and that the new zoning should encourage more active street level uses and a more pleasant pedestrian experience. Then it went downhill. She added that while she supports the view corridor study, she doesn’t like that the discussion has only been about views of iconic buildings, and that she’s interested in other views, such as those experienced by pedestrians as they’re walking around the Lake, particularly the views of sunlight between tall buildings, and that staff should consider those as well when they study view corridors.

She wasn’t into the OHA’s request to exempt the Lake Merritt BART Station Specific Plan area, saying that since there are currently no height limits in the area, and the new zoning includes some height limits, the new zoning will actually be more protective for people concerned about height, apparently having forgotten that there are other factors besides height that limit the size of new buildings. Noting that the Specific Plan will supercede the new zoning, she said she was fine with the temporary rezoning in the meantime.

She said that she was generally supportive of the height map, but agreed with Nancy Nadel’s proposal to take the stretch of Lakeside Drive between 14th Street and 17th Street and limit the heights there to only 55 feet, reasoning that since most of the existing buildings along that area are around 170 feet tall, limiting the heights on the remaining parcels will “break up” the taller buildings so that people walking around the Lake can retain a sense of light and air.

OMG, this was so annoying. I mean, that stretch of Lakeside is already basically all high rises, and there are four small buildings in between. Two are cute and it would be sad to lose them. The other two are hideous eyesores that should be torn down and replaced. Since this street represents such a miniscule portion of downtown, I don’t really care that much that we’re not going to let anyone build anything there in practice, but the principle of it is just so maddening. Nothing even remotely tall is permitted along the vast majority of the Lake! I just don’t understand how people can sit there and act as if putting up two buildings the same size as all the others on like two blocks is going to ruin Lake Merritt and then have everyone respond as if that’s a credible thing to say. It’s preposterous.

Kernighan went on the explain that while she does support taller building heights along 14th Street, she is also very concerned about these mysterious views, and was therefore okay with the temporary lower height limit until the view corridor study is complete.

Then Jean Quan started babbling about how Beijing looks so different now than when she visited in the 70s, and how it’s been built up way too much and she doesn’t want that to happen to Oakland. Honestly, I really don’t think she has much to worry about there. Once she finished her ode to old Beijing, she moved on to complaining about how she didn’t want to vote on the zoning because she couldn’t understand it without being able to see a map.

But apparently it wasn’t quite so bad as all that, because she did vote on it in the end. She said that she had tried to read the proposal over the weekend and even got in her car and drove around downtown a little bit to understand it. I think we were supposed to be impressed that she put in so much effort. I’ll say I found it underwhelming and leave it at that.

She then pompously informed the room that one of the problems with the zoning proposal is that it only addresses heights, and doesn’t consider where and how much of downtown should be housing or office, and suggested that the Council should hold a special workshop sometime to look at downtown in this broader sense, since she didn’t see any good reason not to take a few more months on something so important. The new zoning, of course, does actually address that pretty clearly, but hey – 37 pages is a lot to read. I can see how she might have missed it.

Rebecca Kaplan pointed out that the downtown proposal is just a small piece of the zoning update for the entire city, and that we need to move it forward so we can focus on the rest of Oakland, then reminded everyone that there had actually been a healthy discussion of a wide variety of issues during the year-plus long series of hearings, which she knew since she’d actually been to Planning Commission meetings about the zoning and witnessed the process firsthand.

Unlike her counterparts on the dais, she didn’t seem to have trouble understand the maps in front of her, but did note that the graphics could be better, and said that she wants three dimensional images and improved maps for the specific plans, and added that she’d like to return to the issue of downtown parking requirements in a separate discussion after recess. (I don’t know what was wrong with the map above, but the various Councilmembers complained and complained and complained about not having a map to look at incessantly all night long, despite the fact that it was projected right in front of them.)

She questioned what the goal of the view corridors is, saying that while she doesn’t oppose them, she worried about them being overly broad and vague – should the view of City Hall from her Temescal roof be protected?

Then it was Jane Brunner’s turn. UGH. She got off to a moderately promising start, saying she likes the idea of having more tall buildings downtown so they stay out of the neighborhoods. Then she said she didn’t want every building to look exactly the same, and asked what they can do to guarantee a mix of building heights on every block.

Eric Angstadt explained that the market and how much people can charge for space has a lot more to do with how tall people build that anything the City is going to do, then pointed out that the vast variances in lot sizes downtown pretty much ensure varied building heights, since you need a really big lot to build a really big building.

You might think that this is the sort of thing someone might have learned after making decisions about land use for twelve and a half years. Apparently you would be wrong. Anyway, she seemed satisfied with the answer. Then she said she thought we should do something to make sure we preserve light and air in between all the tall buildings, and wanted to know how that issue could be addressed. Eric Angstadt patiently explained that this is the entire point of the tower and base model that the entire height map is based on. You might think that at that point, she’d be embarrassed enough about not knowing anything about the proposal in front of her and just shut up, but you would be wrong again. Instead, she countered that the tower reductions sounded fine for some height areas, but she was concerned about how to address the sunlight issue in areas that allowed for unlimited height. Did she look remotely chastened after it was explained to her that these areas also have tower bulk reduction requirements? I’ll let you guess.

Then more clueless questions, followed by complaints about how wrong it is that they’re being asked to make such a big decision without any maps (at this point, the map was still being projected on the screen, BTW). Eventually they passed the zoning with the modifications I noted above.

Like I said before, I don’t really think the outcome was that bad, but watching the discussion was simply infuriating. Everyone seemed to agree that the downtown zoning was really important, because they kept saying so over and over and over again, but apparently it wasn’t important enough to take the time to understand it enough to have a informed discussion. Instead, it was just “tall buildings” this and “sunlight” that with apparently little knowledge of what the rules actually do allow. With the exception of Rebecca Kaplan, they all sounded like the type of moderately informed but highly opinionated people you always somehow get stuck talking to when you go to a barbeque of someone you don’t know very well. There is nothing wrong with these people, I suppose, but one might think that since the City Council’s most important power is the ability to govern land use, and between them, they have seventy one and a half years experience wielding this power, they would collectively have a slightly more sophisticated grasp of how land use and zoning work that your boss’s chatty neighbor.

If I hadn’t agreed before that we should have three dimensional modeling to accompany zoning proposals, I certainly would have after last night’s meeting. It appears that without visual aids, it was beyond the ability of much of the City Council to understand the very clear charts in the zoning code.

I remain concerned in general about the Council’s tenuous grasp of how zoning works. With the citywide zoning update ahead of them, there are going to be many controversial and important issues they’ll have to address in the coming year or two, and I’m pretty sure we would end up with a better result if the decision makers were at least relatively well educated about zoning. Perhaps they should schedule themselves a special workshop to receive a “Planning 101″ lecture.