Ending a contentious battle that has dragged on for four years, the Berkeley City Council granted a use permit early this morning to the controversial West Berkeley Bowl project, a proposed 91,000-square-foot grocery store at the corner of Heinz Avenue and 9th Street.
The vote capped a marathon public hearing that started at 7 p.m. Tuesday and lasted well past midnight. At almost 1.9 acres, the West Berkeley Bowl will be even larger than its sister store, the popular Berkeley Bowl #1 on Oregon Street.
The project was endorsed by many residents of the area, who say they have gone too long without a grocery store, and opposed by other residents, business owners and union officials, who fear the impact it would have on the neighborhood.
One obstacle confronting the developer is that the area is currently zoned for light-industrial use, not retail. So the council also voted to amend both the General Plan and the West Berkeley Plan to enable the project to go forward.
Dan Rush, president of United Commercial Food Workers local 120, which engaged in a protracted but ultimately successful struggle in 2003 to unionize Berkeley Bowl #1, said the west Berkeley neighborhood’s light-industrial nature should be maintained to preserve high-wage blue-collar jobs.
He urged the lawmakers to turn thumbs down on the development unless the Bowl agrees to conduct a "card check" union election first. Such an election allows employees to vote by turning in a card indicating their preference.
"The Berkeley Bowl has had a long pattern of adhering to workers rights only when forced to by the courts and the National Labor Relations Board," he said. "If you allow this, you’re opening the door to Wal-Mart."
Berkeley Bowl owner Glenn Yasuda said in a written statement that he’s willing to conduct an election, but he prefers a different process -- a secret ballot conducted by the NLRB.
Rush rejected that proposal, calling it "tantamount to offering to be prosecuted if they commit a crime." But Gene Gress, a resident of the area who identified himself as "a red-diaper baby," said, "I’m all for unions, but it’s not my business to tell the Berkeley Bowl they have to work things out with the union first before they’re allowed to go there."
Ayman Fawaz, chairman of the board of trustees of the French-American school Ecole Bilingue de Berkeley, located across the street, warned against the danger to his school’s students from the additional automobile traffic the Bowl would draw.
"We met with city staff and hired our own transportation engineer to come up with mitigation that will deal with our concerns, but they ignored us," he said.
Mary Lou Vandeventer, representing a coalition of artists and craftspersons in the area, worried about the traffic’s effect on local businesses.
"(The Bowl) would be far and away the largest traffic generator in Berkeley," she said.
She was seconded by Fred Kelly, owner of nearby Ashby Lumber, who called the Bowl project "the opening wedge in the Emeryvilization of south Berkeley." "We’ve seen what growth does," he said. "This will not be a small, local grocery store. This will be the Oakland-Emeryville-El Cerrito-Richmond-Pinole Bowl. Remember this five years from now, when we say we can’t handle the traffic."
David Levinson agreed. "This isn’t a small neighborhood store," he said. "This is the equivalent of Costco being dropped in here. That means a potentially huge infusion of automobiles in an area that is already congested."
The opponents also warned against putting Berkeley’s economic eggs in one basket -- the retail sector -- arguing that a more diversified economic base would afford the city greater protection against a business downturn.
But other residents in the area lined up in support of the Bowl. "There are more than 13 families with children on our block," said Laurel Coates. "We are forced to leave our neighborhood to buy food for our families."
Her neighbor, Natalie Studer, said, "I relish the idea of flopping my kid in my stroller and walking to my neighborhood Berkeley Bowl instead of gritting my teeth and driving across town to the Oregon site."
Frieda Smith, a South Berkeley resident for more than 50 years, said, "We’ve done survey after survey in my neighborhood, and each time we ask them what they need most, they say a real grocery store instead of a store that just sells liquor and dried-up food."
Christine Staples decried what she called "selfish disregard on the part of non-residents to the needs of me and my neighbors."
Michael Golden, speaking for the West Berkeley Business Alliance, called the city’s permit process "dysfunctional."
"Once again, a vocal minority is pushing a self-interested, obstructive agenda," he said.
His neighbor, Steven Smith, agreed. "Approve this project tonight," he begged, "so we can all get to enjoy it in our lifetime."
Responding to the union’s concerns, several council members tied with the idea of tying approval of the use permit to unionization of the store. But the idea died after City Attorney Manuela Albuquerque told the lawmakers that it was a legal non-starter.
"This area has been preempted by federal law, and the courts have made it clear we cannot condition a general plan or a zoning change on union status," she said.
The final vote was 6 in favor, with council members Anderson, Worthington and Spring abstaining.
Darryl Moore, who represents the area, was relieved that the battle was over, but he said the long delay was proof that "the process is broken."
"How many trees died for this four-year process? How long does it take to get a grocery store built in this community that everyone wants?"
Reach Martin Snapp at 510-262-2768 or e-mail msnapp@cctimes.com.
Posted on Wed, Jun. 14, 2006 |
