Michael Drummond/Senior Staff

More than 40,000 Bay Area residents took to Shattuck Avenue on Sunday in celebration of Berkeley’s second Sunday Streets event.

From 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., Shattuck Avenue closed to cars and welcomed pedestrians and cyclists instead. Between Haste and Rose streets, participants could engage in a variety of activities, including live art and salsa dancing, as well as watch various performance groups.

“It’s about getting people to experience their urban environment in a totally different way and appreciate Berkeley in a new way,” said Sunday Streets Berkeley director Emunah Hauser.

The event is organized by Livable Berkeley, a coalition which strives to make Berkeley a more sustainable place, and a few partner organizations. According to Hauser, more than 150 organizations and activity leaders, including several UC Berkeley clubs and organizations, participated in Sunday Streets.

Sunday Streets drew people not only from Berkeley but from surrounding cities as well.

“It’s a really special feeling to have so much of a main street shut down,” said Oakland resident Tina Marie. “People look at each other differently. You’re taking people in.”

Because the street was closed off, several bus lines scheduled detours and added temporary stops near University Avenue and Oxford Street.

For Berkeley resident Michael Marchant, the absence of cars created a safer environment for his children.

“We look forward to any of these events where they block off streets to cars,” he said. “It makes it easier as a parent if you don’t have to worry about traffic.”

Hauser said this year’s Sunday Streets had a larger focus on transportation outreach than last year’s. Bay Area Bike Share allowed people to test bikes, and goBerkeley, a pilot program aiming to improve transportation in the city, asked for feedback from residents about public amenities.

To focus on physical activity and active transportation, Livable Berkeley does not invite street vendors to set up booths. Instead, many stores along Shattuck set up tables themselves, providing free samples or selling smaller store items.

Belli Osteria, a restaurant which does not normally open on Sundays, set up a pasta-making demonstration. Its co-owner Damien Morrison said Sunday Streets increased the restaurant’s exposure.

While some businesses had lines out the door, others saw a decrease in customers.

“There are plenty of distractions, so probably not as many people want to hang out in the comic book store,” said Mike Courtright, an employee at Fantastic Comics. While Courtright saw some new faces in the store, he saw fewer of his regular customers.

Sunday Streets, however, does not come without cost for the event’s organizers. Hauser estimates the event cost about $65,000 this year.

Although fundraising and private sponsorship cover a large part of this cost, Berkeley City Council pledged in January to provide Sunday Streets about $59,000 to split between 2013 and 2014.

Councilmember Kriss Worthington predicts the council will continue funding the event for subsequent years. Still, he feels the city’s contribution is a little high.

“It’s unfortunate that the other longtime community events don’t get more funding,” Worthington said. “This event gets as much as 20 other city events, so there’s a degree of unfairness.”

But for Councilmember Laurie Capitelli, Sunday Streets is “money well spent.”

“Everything shouldn’t be business,” Capitelli said. “Sometimes we should just celebrate as a community, and that’s important.”

Contact Tahmina Achekzai at tachekzai@dailycal.org.

The post Tens of thousands visit Berkeley’s Sunday Streets on Shattuck Avenue appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Sureya Melkonian/Staff

After almost two years of vacancy, the Oaks Theater may be brought back to life as a multipurpose performance venue.

City Councilmember Laurie Capitelli, who represents the district in which the theater is located, and the Youth Musical Theater Company have teamed up to renovate the facility.

“I want it to work for a whole bunch of purposes,” Capitelli said. “For theater, for dance, for symphony.”

Jennifer Boesing, artistic director of the YMTC, said she hopes to organize a nonprofit group to manage the Oaks Theater. The group would consist of members from the community and tenants of the building.

“I created a survey, (and) we had close to 1,200 responses,” Capitelli said. “Ninety-eight percent were favorable toward the Oaks Center becoming a theater.”

Allen Cain, director of the Solano Avenue Association, said many families live in the neighborhood surrounding the Oaks Theater.

“We want to appeal to a youthful market,” Cain said. “We need something for the youth to do on the street.”

The Oaks Theater, located on Solano Avenue in North Berkeley, opened in 1925 and was used as a movie theater until 2005. It reopened briefly in 2010 when Merriment Media used the theater to show Bollywood films for several months. The space has remained unused since.

John Gordon, a commercial realtor and the owner of the Oaks Theater, said he is supportive of the theater being a multiuse venue. Capitelli and the YMTC have worked out an agreement with Gordon so he will not rent the theater to any other operator for the next four months, giving the task force time to finish renovation plans and find organizations that want to use the theater.

The task force is working on a plan for renovation it can present to the city. Donn Logan, the lead architect for the renovation, said his team will be building a stage, redistributing the seating and taking down the wall that divides the building’s two theaters.

“We’re just at the beginning,” Logan said.

Capitelli estimated costs will amount to anywhere between $300,000 to $500,000, but an official cost analysis has not been completed. He added that more than $100,000 has already been pledged.

“We’ll need help from the neighborhood, the core tenants,” he said. “We’ll need to do some fundraising.”

Capitelli said he plans to get started on the plans by mid-October and submit them by the end of the year. He hopes to start the renovation sometime next spring for an opening in September of next year.

Tara Hurley covers city news. Contact her at thurley@dailycal.org.

The post Oaks Theater may be converted to performance venue appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Carli Baker/File

Berkeley City Council has entered the debate over whether to label genetically modified produce, voting Tuesday night to investigate the possibility of instituting such a policy at the city level.

The approved motion directs the city manager and several city commissions to research the possibility of having grocery stores label all of their genetically modified produce — one form of genetically modified organism. Specifically, the city will examine which stores the policy would apply to, how the requirement would be enforced and how produce would be labeled.

“The public deserves to know where their produce comes from,” said Councilmember Jesse Arreguin, who sponsored the agenda item. “The labeling requirement would give customers necessary information about produce.”

Yet, according to Michael Eisen, an associate professor in the campus department of molecular and cell biology, there is not much evidence that GMO products are dangerous.

“There is very broad consensus among scientists that (GMO) products are safe (to consume),” Eisen said. “The technology itself is neither safe nor dangerous. It’s just a way to modify crops.”

Though they supported the motion, several council members also voiced concerns about a GMO-labeling policy. According to Councilmember Laurie Capitelli, creating new GMO-labeling requirements could cause an increase in the prices of non-GMO produce and add to the burden of low-income communities that cannot afford these higher prices.

Councilmember Susan Wengraf also expressed concerns about the impact of GMO labeling, specifically on the local mom-and-pop grocery stores in Berkeley.

“I agree that we should all know what we are eating,” Wengraf said. “But the burden should be on the corporations who are doing this in the first place. We shouldn’t be burdening the local grocers.”

Wengraf also believes that action should be taken on the state or federal level, not in Berkeley, where the population is only about 100,000.

Last November, Proposition 37, which would have required California grocery stores and retailers to label genetically engineered foods in their stores, was rejected by a majority of California voters. In Berkeley, however, an overwhelming 74.6 percent of residents voted in favor of the proposition, Arreguin said.

There are 64 countries, as of April, that require GMO labeling, according to the nonprofit organization Center for Food Safety.

Alison Fu covers city news. Contact her at afu@dailycal.org and follow her on Twitter @alisonfu_.

The post Berkeley City Council considers labeling genetically modified produce appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Mary Zheng/Staff

Berkeley City Council approved the construction of an ice cream shop named Dream on Telegraph Avenue across from CREAM at its meeting Tuesday on the condition that a proposed takeout window would be removed from the plans, due to ADA accessibility and traffic concerns.

The Dream project was submitted by Rasputin Music owner Ken Sarachan and approved by the city’s Department of Planning and Development in September 2012. CREAM manager Gus Shamieh appealed the decision later that month to the Zoning Adjustments Board, citing concerns that a takeout window might generate harmful amounts of traffic.

The board affirmed the city’s approval of the project January, but in February, Shamieh appealed the board’s decision to the City Council.

“This is not an issue about competition,” Shamieh said. “This is an issue about safeguarding the right of ADA persons to freely and safely access the sidewalk. This is about protecting bicyclists and motorists from potentially hazardous situations.”

The proposed window would have looked out onto Channing Way, the sidewalk of which is narrowest at 8 feet and widest at 16 feet and 9 inches.

At the meeting, Councilmember Max Anderson raised concerns of space for balance- and sight-impaired people, and Councilmember Jesse Arreguin added that the takeout window would increase the incidence of double-parking and parking in the red curb parking zone.

However, most of the public comment from both sides of the appeal focused on concerns with competition and maintenance of small, local businesses pertinent to the cultural character of the city.

“We have a Dreyer’s and a Breyer’s,” said Councilmember Susan Wengraf in response to these comments. “They are both doing really well … CREAM has a niche market. It has a loyal following. It’s very popular, and other businesses deserve the same chance to make it.”

According to Sarachan, Rasputin recently had a 75 percent drop in sales. Sarachan also closed down some of his stores in other cities and believes Dream would boost sales. As an owner of an organic farm in Fairfield, Calif., Sarachan said he plans to start a line of more organic ice cream products that would offer a healthier alternative.

Councilmember Laurie Capitelli also argued that an additional ice cream store would reduce waiting time and actually increase the number of people coming to Telegraph Avenue. Councilmember Kriss Worthington argued, however, that the crowd around Dream may be located perpendicular to the street, as opposed to huddled against a wall like at CREAM, and cause more disturbance.

Chandna Agarwal, a former CREAM employee, said that the same arguments for overcrowding at Dream could also apply to CREAM.

“(CREAM) may be a store, but it’s practically a booth, a window,” Agarwal said. “In there, there are at most six people being served, and the rest eat standing outside.”

All councilmembers except Worthington voted to pass Councilmember Linda Maio’s motion to allow Dream to open but with no takeout window.

Contact Mary Zhou at mzhou@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the Zoning Adjustment Board approved the project in September. In fact, the city Department of Planning and Development approved the project.

A previous version of this article incorrectly spelled Chandna Agarwal’s name.

The post Dream ice cream shop across from CREAM approved by City Council appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Tara Hurley/Staff

The federal government has filed a lawsuit to shut down Berkeley Patients Group, the city’s oldest and largest medical marijuana dispensary.

A complaint was filed on May 2 through the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Nahla Droubi, the landlord of the property that houses the dispensary. The lawsuit threatens to seize the property for allegedly violating federal law, which prohibits operating a marijuana dispensary.

Berkeley City Council members and representatives from Berkeley Patients Group held a press conference Wednesday afternoon in front of the Old City Hall expressing their opposition to the lawsuit.

“There is no legitimate reason to target Berkeley Patients Group,” said Sean Luse, chief operations officer at BPG. “They’re in compliance with state law. The U.S. attorney general … has chosen to hurt our patients by diverting attention from the real issues.”

Berkeley Patients Group also came into opposition with the federal government in February 2012, when it received letters from the U.S. attorney’s office for violating a federal law banning dispensaries from being located within 1,000 feet of a school. Even though California law dictates that the distance only has to be 600 feet, the dispensary voluntarily closed down and reopened at a new location in December a few blocks away.

According to the complaint, the U.S. attorney began sending Droubi letters again in November 2012 before the new location opened, warning that the new location would be in violation of the same federal law by being within 1,000 feet of two preschools. A second letter sent in February noted that the group could face criminal and civil penalties if operation continued.

Luse said that the federal government should focus its attention on other crime problems in the city, like illegal drug and gun trafficking. He also said that they plan to fight the lawsuit.

“We look forward to having our day in court and believe we will ultimately prevail,” Luse said.

City Councilmembers Darryl Moore, Kriss Worthington, Laurie Capitelli and Jesse Arreguin voiced their backing of Berkeley Patients Group at the press conference. Mayor Tom Bates also showed his support for the dispensary.

“I’m very, very disappointed that this has happened, and we’ll do anything we can to make sure they get back into business,” Bates said.

Councilmember Kriss Worthington said that the federal government was overstepping its boundaries, referencing the recent California Supreme Court ruling on City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center. In the ruling, the court recognized the legality of medical cannabis dispensaries but allowed that local governments may ban dispensaries despite state law.

“Being a U.S. attorney doesn’t give you the right to change state law or city law,” Worthington said. “It’s so absurd. It’s a waste of time, and it’s threatening patient care.”

In the meantime, the dispensary will remain open, according to Henry Wykowski, attorney for Berkeley Patients Group.

“The only people that would benefit from the closing of Berkeley Patients Group are the gangs and cartels,” Wykowski said. “This action will cause them to prey on the patients who now have a clean, safe place to get their medicine.”

The federal government filed a similar lawsuit against a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland last July. The city of Oakland filed a lawsuit in response, claiming that the federal government had overstepped its jurisdiction. A federal judge later dismissed the lawsuit, saying that only the dispensary and its landlords could contest the government’s seizure of property.

Wykowski said that they intend to file a claim in response to the lawsuit and will also present their case in court.

Contact Tara Hurley at thurley@dailycal.org.

The post Berkeley marijuana dispensary threatened by federal government appeared first on The Daily Californian.

For those of you who are tired of hearing about rambunctious old people waving their arms over city issues, worry not. Here’s a reprieve. This week, we’re focusing specifically on the creation of the “student supermajority district,” a district whose constituency would likely be more than 90 percent students.

Why would we want such a district to begin with? ASUC Redistricting Director Noah Efron said in an email, “If we have a district whose population is 90 percent student, any council member who has to run in election after election in such a district will be forced to be accountable to student issues.”

At face value, that sounds like something everyone can get on board with. Given the fact that students comprise a large portion of the city’s population, why wouldn’t we want more representation of student issues?

There are some problems to be contended with. Councilmember Laurie Capitelli, who supports the student district, questioned the prominence of student issues. He pointed out to me in an email that, “To some degree (student) issues are not completely known by the Council or the community. There has not been a venue for students to articulate their concerns.”

I don’t want to get into a debate over what is or is not a “student issue” or why the Berkeley community isn’t aware of them. Let’s say we’re able to clearly define them for Capitelli and the council. Even then, would one council member attuned to these issues be enough?

Philippe Marchand, the former assembly affairs vice president of the Graduate Assembly, stated in a comment on a Daily Cal article that “there has been very little discussion on how concentrating students in a single district would affect the overall support for students if none of the other council members have to really care about the student vote.”

There’s a reason that The Three Musketeers are never able to trump The Clique. It’s because there are only three of them. It’s cruel arithmetic at work.

Say an undergrad or grad student runs in the next election cycle and is able to oust Kriss Worthington. Will that solitary figure, working tirelessly to bring student issues to the forefront, be able to enact or solidify change without the support of the others? If he/she’s working alone, that’s a no. Cruel arithmetic.

I asked Efron what he thought about the idea that concentrating the student demographic into a single district could be counterproductive toward the end goal of increasing student representation. Efron said that when the old map was drawn in 1986, students were purposely split up to dilute the student voice. He said, “To suggest that having students in multiple districts means more councilmembers represent them is incorrect … (it) means that it’s not politically important for ANYONE to listen to students.”

Current ASUC External Affairs Vice President Shahryar Abbasi backs him up, telling me in an email that “having someone on council who walks and talks with students everyday will be far more significant vs. having scattered representation who are not solely focused on our interest.”

Not all students are united on this front. CalSERVE’s EAVP candidate, Spencer Pritchard, said in an email, “Overall … a student district does not tackle the problem of student under-representation in city affairs … The idea of a single student district does not go far enough. We need to be advocating for further representation for all of city government.”

One thing they can agree on is that the council hasn’t done enough for student matters. While all of the council members I interviewed last week expressed their support for students, Efron, Pritchard and Student Action EAVP candidate Safeena Mecklai believe the council hasn’t given student issues their due. “We’ve seen with the current city council that when students are divided, their voices are not heard and councilmembers are not responsive to their needs,” Mecklai said in an email. “One lone councilmember cannot pass something on the council, but it will allow us to raise our voices … That’s a huge step.”

Pause. That was a lot of quotes and perspectives I gave you just now. I’m sure there are many more I’m missing as well. Chew on  ’em, digest ’em and if after all this you’re concerned, show up when the redistricting maps are presented and have your say.

As for my opinion? I think one is a lonely number. I think the math is stacked against us. Then again, I’m not the one who needs to be convinced.

At the end of the day, it comes back to the core nine on the council. Don’t get tired of these rambunctious people — they’ll decide whether we get a student supermajority district or not.

Get loud. ’Cause the ball’s in their court now.

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post District 7 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Just as SCOTUS is divided into two distinct camps — the conservatives and the liberals — Berkeley City Council is a dichotomous body.

The first faction consists of Max Anderson, Jesse Arreguin and Kriss Worthington. They are referred to as the “WAA” coalition, but I like to call them “The Three Musketeers” because they’re the more outspokenly progressive members of the council and are known for fighting for the “causes of the people.”

The other five are “The Clique.”

Tommy B. gets to be ASB President, Linda Maio is Everyone’s Best Friend Forever, Laurie Capitelli is the Sarcastic Kid on the Debate Team, Gordon Wozniak the Nerd, Darryl Moore the Kid Who Never Talks and Susan Wengraf the Dozer.

It’s the Breakfast Club, Berkeley style.

The Three Musketeers and The Clique clash on the most controversial of issues, with The Three Musketeers consistently losing out.

However, these two lively factions may not last forever. With the upcoming redistricting process, it’s very possible that district lines may be redrawn in such a way as to favor certain members and disadvantage others.

Rather than try to understand redistricting — a very important process that is now a whole different ballgame for Berkeley due to the passage of Measure R last fall — myself and its potential implications for a “student district,” I hit up a few of our lovely council members.

Arreguin explained in an email that “In an ideal situation, redistricting is a technical process in which legislative district boundaries are drawn to achieve equal population in each district, to protect the principle of one person, one vote.’”

But, of course, we don’t live in an ideal situation that speaks so diplomatically, so there’s sure to be drama.

Clique members Wengraf and Bates both expressed enthusiasm about seeing the new maps that are due to the city clerk on Friday, March 15, while Wozniak chimed in with an email that he believed these efforts to keep “communities of interest together” was an example of “participatory democracy alive and well in Berkeley.” What a PC group of folks we got here.

Bates was especially keen on having the maps “make sense” — “I want boundaries that make sense, lines that make sense.” But what makes a boundary or line sensible? One that pleases a certain side? The Clique certainly sounds genuinely interested in what the public has to propose and probably has the city’s best interests at heart.

Not everyone agrees, though. People’s Princess Worthington noted in an email that, “Even in Berkeley we have had … lines drawn to include specific candidates in a district and block candidates out of a district.” Arreguin backs up his buddy, saying, “Measure R … opens the door for Councilmembers to politicize the redistricting process and draw lines that punish opponents. This particular City Council is partisan and sometimes more petty than professional.“

Guys, this is like Gossip Girl for Berkeley nerds, so pay attention.

When I asked Wengraf and Bates what they thought of the idea that redistricting could be done in a way that would hurt certain council members, Bates said, “I don’t think that’s even possible,” and Wengraf scoffed, “I think that’s a very paranoid approach for redistricting … if you are a strong candidate, I don’t think it’s a problem.”

Can we please pop the popcorn and get this show on the road already?

I know I shouldn’t condone political drama for the sake of my own entertainment, but let’s be real — do we honestly think this is going to end any other way than in bloodshed?

Arreguin added that he hopes the city can have a “grown-up” discussion on this topic. Unless your last name is Solo, hope is pretty much futile.

We can strive as much as we want to make sure redrawn lines are objective, rational and sensible, but at the end of the day, there’s no way politics doesn’t come into this.

If you’ve reached the end of this column and you’re thinking, “Wow, this is gonna be a shitshow,” then I’ve done my job. If you aren’t thinking that, here’s some logic for you:

1) The Three Musketeers (more like two, as Anderson was nowhere to be found) don’t like the implications of redistricting.

2) The Clique does.

3) Put them in a mixer and blend well. You’ll get a dirty martini, shaken not stirred.

Makes sense, right?

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post There will be blood appeared first on The Daily Californian.

“OMG, I use the post office all the time!” said no one ever. For all zero people at this school who regularly use snail mail to communicate, you may have heard of the proposed sale of the Downtown Berkeley Post Office. You may also not care.

This, however, is not the case for the citizenry of Berkeley, which has taken up arms and regularly protested against said sale over the past year. The Downtown Berkeley Post Office is special, you see, for it’s listed in the National Register of Historical Places, and its facade, crafted in 1915, is decorated with Works Progress Administration art. As such, it’s an expensive piece of real estate and costly to maintain.

Berkeley City Council formed a subcommittee last year to address the concerns arising from this proposed sale. As of a meeting held this past Tuesday, Feb. 12, the council stands with the people — it is very much in favor of preserving this historic building if at all possible.

Now, let’s make something clear — the post office isn’t closing altogether. If the sale of the building does go through, the post office will simply be moving to another more affordable location.

So what are some reasons for keeping it going in its current carapace?

Harvey Smith, president of the National New Deal Preservation Association and a staunch supporter of our lovely post office, wrote in an op-ed to the Daily Cal last summer that “The proposed sale of the nearly century-old Downtown Berkeley Main Post Office is yet another close-to-home example of the public surrender to corporate America.”

Wait, what? But actually … what?!

This reminds me of a Berkeley City Council meeting I attended last summer that was focused on Berkeley’s unsuccessful ballot measure that would have banned sitting on commercial sidewalks. Protesters congregated outside to express their dismay over the proposed ban, and to one side stood a group participating in the protests loudly shouting, “An acorn is no more a tree than a corporation is a person! A tutu is no more a ballerina than a corporation is a person!”

These both happen to be true statements, but what do they have to do with anything? Why does the supposed desecration of a public entity somehow have to link back to corporate power in America?

Dear Lord, it’s not as if we’re going to install a WalMart or Starbucks in the post office building. “Don’t give in to corporate entities!” is a great slogan to get the people riled up, but pitting public versus private in this matter is the incorrect way to frame this debate.

Simple facts: The Downtown Berkeley Post Office is suffering financially; the plight of the post office is so bad that it has been placed on the “2012 List of America’s 11 Most Endangered Places.” However, the proposed sale does not arise out of an insidious attempt to privatize public goods but an unfortunate reality brought about by technological shifts in the industry.

Let’s not turn this into an ideological debate where one doesn’t exist.

Another reason for not selling has been the consistent cry that this building is part of Berkeley history and that historical preservation is paramount. As a fellow history nerd, I can sympathize.

But let’s be honest here, folks; this isn’t Monticello, this is a freakin’ post office. It’s like saying, “Oh gee whiz, it’s 1932, but for history’s sake, don’t sell that Pony Express outpost that’s falling apart and not making any money! It’s pretty!”

At the last subcommittee meeting on the topic, Councilmember Jesse Arreguin said, “We paid for it,” in reference to the fact that taxpayer money has allowed for the building’s development and maintenance all these years.

I can understand how you can feel attached to a building because you’ve paid for it. That’s where I stop comprehending, though, because the arguments that are being made to save the building don’t follow logically.

If you love the building because it’s historic, well … the building isn’t going anywhere. It will remain a beautiful facade, regardless of its inhabitants. If you love the U.S. Postal Service because you would have been that person in 1932 using the Pony Express, well … that’s not being eliminated with the sale, only moved.

Why insist on maintaining a costly building/service and paying taxes for it when neither the building nor the service will be significantly tarnished by a sale?

The council’s next subcommittee meeting on the issue will take place next Tuesday, Feb. 26; voting on the issue will occur on March 5. As noted before, the council is fully in support of historic preservation. To which I must ask: To what end?

Or better yet: How often do you use the post office?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post You don’t got mail appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The city of Berkeley has seen an 11 percent increase in violent and property crimes for 2012 after four years of falling crime rates.

According to the city’s annual crime report, announced by Berkeley Police Department Chief Michael Meehan at the City Council’s special meeting Tuesday, there has been an increase in “part one crimes” throughout the city. Part one crimes include murder, rape, robbery, burglary, larceny and auto theft.

“It’s disturbing that crime is up 11 percent,” said City Councilmember Susan Wengraf. “It’s disturbing that rape is up as high as it is. I’m not sure if the actual rape numbers are up or if more people are just reporting rapes, but I was terrified.”

In 2011 Berkeley had one reported homicide, 20 cases of rape and 3,458 larcenies. In contrast, 2012 saw five homicides, 39 rapes and 4,102 larcenies. Larcenies, which make up a majority of the reported crimes, include petty theft, grand theft and auto burglaries.

Several crimes, however, were below or remained near 2011 levels, according to the report. There were fewer aggravated assaults, burglaries, robberies and arsons in 2012 than in 2011.

Several council members, including Laurie Capitelli and Kriss Worthington, said they were disappointed in the rise in crime for 2012. Both, however, expressed support for the police department, stating that the department has been doing a good job handling the various incidents.

“The police force is working hard and acting successfully in making sure that they’re using their time and resources in an efficient manner,” Capitelli said.

Additionally, Meehan’s report listed several crime prevention and response strategies that the police department implemented in order to reduce certain crimes. These strategies include efforts such as working in conjunction with UCPD to reduce street robberies and address ongoing crimes issues on Southside.

Much like the city, the university has also seen an increase in crime. Part one crimes went up by about 13 percent, according Lt. Eric Tejada, spokesperson for UCPD.

Robberies have increased from 13 cases in 2011 to 20 in 2012, and violent crimes have risen by 1 percent, Tejada said.

Berkeley residents should also be more alert and careful when it comes to property crimes, according to Capitelli and Wengraf.

“People just need to be conscious of their environment and the fact that you don’t want to create a bunch of inviting targets,” Capitelli said. “That’s everything from not walking down the street to your head buried in your smartphone and to keeping your car locked.”

Despite the uptick in crime for 2012, crime rates have declined significantly in the long run.

“In the past 10 years in a row, crime has gone down, and this is the first year that crime has gone up,” Worthington said. “Even with the increase, it’s still lower than two years ago.”

Andy Nguyen is the lead crime reporter. Contact him at anguyen@dailycal.org.

The post 2012 sees rise in Berkeley city crime rates appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The city’s Peace and Justice Commission drafted the letter, addressed to the UC Regents and other entities that cooperate in management and research at the laboratories. The letter cites the 1986 Nuclear Free Berkeley Act, a portion of the Berkeley Municipal Code that prevents the city from contracting with or investing in groups that engage in nuclear weapons work, and asks that the university no longer manage those labs in light of the “nuclear danger to the world.”

Councilmembers Gordon Wozniak and Laurie Capitelli voiced criticism of the letter at Tuesday’s council meeting.

“It was rather ironic that we were asking the university for a favor, and the attitude was, while I’ve got you on the phone, please stop managing the labs, because we have a nuclear-free ordinance,” Capitelli said.

In September and November, the City Council granted two waivers exempting UC Berkeley from the NFBA. The waivers greenlighted funding for the startup incubator Skydeck and enabled the city to store a sizable cache of emergency medical supplies with UC Berkeley.

The NFBA requires that council grant waivers whenever the city enters an agreement with UC Berkeley due to the university’s continuing relationship with Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Peace and Justice Commission administers the NFBA and recommends grants or denials of waivers.

“We asked the City Council from here on out, when a waiver is granted that bears on the university, a letter be sent to the university stating our opposition to their continued management of the labs,” said Peace and Justice Commission Vice Chair George Lippman.

Both Wozniak and Capitelli support focusing efforts on encouraging the federal government to reduce or eliminate weapons stockpiles.

Wozniak previously attempted to have the NFBA’s restrictions on investments and contracts removed. He suggested splitting the city’s boycott of the labs from the university.

“If they want to keep this clause, it should only apply to the national labs, and there should be a blanket exemption to the campuses that don’t do any weapons work,” Wozniak said.

Jasmina Vujic, UC Berkeley professor of nuclear engineering and director of the Berkeley Nuclear Research Center, described the university’s role in the national labs, however, as a moderating influence on the private companies that help manage the labs.

Capitelli also called adjusting the NFBA an issue to be visited sometime in the future. Changing the code would require a ballot measure brought either by the City Council or by a citizens’ initiative.

Nonetheless, the item passed unanimously in the council, despite concerns brought up from various council members that the letter be properly focused.

Gautham Thomas covers city government. Contact him at gthomas@dailycal.org.

The post Berkeley City Council asks university to halt management of Livermore and Los Alamos labs appeared first on The Daily Californian.