News

Berkeley bids for second Lab campus fly under the radar

Richmond City illustration of a possible LBNL second campus site

Richmond is pulling out all the stops in its bid to persuade the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab to build its second campus there. A full-blown, city-sponsored advertising campaign includes a billboard on I-80, lawn signs for residents’ front yards and “Richmond (Heart) LBNL” buttons available for all to wear.

Alameda, another bidder for the site, has put $20,000 behind a “Let’s put the (Alameda) Point to work” campaign.

Three Berkeley sites are also on the Lab’s shortlist of six — but if there’s a Berkeley welcoming committee, it’s certainly not making its efforts very visible.

The main reason for that is that the three Berkeley-related bids were submitted by private companies, unlike in Richmond and Alameda where the cities signed off on the bids.

Berkeley did not take an official position, partly because it did not want to muddy discussion about the Lab with debate over the West Berkeley Plan — wanting to avoid the impression that the city was making changes in West Berkeley expressly for the Lab — and partly because support for the Lab was not unanimous on the City Council.

So, if the campaigning and lobbying is happening — and you can be sure it is — it’s just more under the radar in Berkeley than elsewhere.

Earlier this week, for example, council member Laurie Capitelli met with the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce to encourage its members to urge the Lab to choose Berkeley.

“It’s a no-brainer,” he said. “Berkeley has so much more to offer than Richmond… except that Richmond is free.” (The Richmond Field Station — one of the the proposed sites — is owned by UC Berkeley.)

Pro-LBNL sign in Alameda

Capitelli said the benefits to Berkeley of the Lab choosing the city were clear: a shot in the arm for the local economy, with good paying jobs, skills training and opportunities for youth. He also cited the “history and tradition” of the relationship between Berkeley and the Lab since its founding in 1931.

Although the Lab does not pay property taxes, the income to the city from its primary Berkeley hills campus is estimated to be at least $120 million. Its overall economic impact on the nine Bay Area counties is $700 million, according to the Lab.

Capitelli also stressed the Lab’s requirements, outlined in its RFQ, for a “welcoming community”, preferably in walking distance to a diverse group of restaurants, cafés, stores and other amenities.

“There are more places where you can buy a latte in Berkeley than anywhere else in the East Bay,” he said.

The first opportunity most Berkeley residents will have to hear about having a second Lab campus within city boundaries, and to see details of the bids, comes with a series of public meetings organized by the Lab.

The meetings, which include presentations from the bidders for the six locations in play, kicked off at Alameda Point on July 13. Richmond Field Station will be discussed on July 21, Oakland’s Brooklyn Basin on July 27, Golden Gate Fields, which is a joint Berkeley-Albany bid, on August 3, Berkeley’s Aquatic Park West on August 4, and Berkeley-Emeryville’s Emery Station on August 8. (See full details on the Lab’s website.)

The second campus is intended to consolidate Lab programs and employees. The Lab has a total of 4,200 employees, 20% of whom are in leased spaces throughout the East Bay. The new campus, which needs to accommodate up to 2 million square feet of lab, office and research and development space, will also provide room for growth.

Michael Goldin, who is part of Berkeley’s Aquatic Park West bid, said he thinks it’s very important that any one of the Berkeley sites win.

“We need this as a community,” he said. “The Lab will deliver a huge boost to our local economy whichever site it chooses.”

LBNL's primary campus in the Berkeley hills

Goldin also points to the work undertaken by the Lab — such as alternative energy technologies and cancer research — which, he believes, are in keeping with Berkeley as a city.

“It’s a rare time when a project is aligned with where our city is morally,” he said.

The Berkeley Chamber of Commerce as an organization is behind the Berkeley bids. “All the players here are Chamber members, including LBNL,” said co-CEO Polly Armstrong. “The Chamber wants to see the second campus in Berkeley.”

Capitelli suggested to Chamber members that they send personal and professional “from the heart” statements to LBNL — and turn up at the Lab’s public meetings. “We need to go on record that the welcome mat is out,” he said.

Whether the Berkeley meetings will live up to the Richmond one in terms of bells and whistles remains to be seen. According to the Contra Costa Times, the Richmond gathering on July 21 will be “a combination informational meeting and pep rally”. It starts with entertainment provided by the East Bay Center for the Performing Arts and includes free refreshments from locally based Galaxy Desserts.

Related:
Three Berkeley sites being considered for Lawrence Berkeley Lab second campus [05.09.11]
Fourth Berkeley site proposed for LBL second campus [03.18.11]
Three Berkeley sites proposed for new LBL campus [03.04.11]
Lawrence Berkeley Lab issues wish list for new campus [01.04.11] 

Print Friendly
Tagged , , , ,
  • Bruce Love

    The Marchant building has a vinyl sign on the side advertising flex space for R&D … does that count?

    I question the economic stimulus Berkeley would gain if LBL located here rather than Richmond.   It seems to me that Berkeley would gain tremendously if LBL picked Richmond:

    – Economic development in Richmond creates demand for Berkeley “destination” businesses.
    – Berkeley real estate is convenient to both the Field Station and the top of the hill.
    – Berkeley schools and other features make it an attractive place to live – we’d import income from Richmond
    – Berkeley would be spared the governmental overhead of regulating and supporting the development.
    – Successful economic development in Richmond may well reduce Berkeley crime.
    – Successful economic development in Richmond would support Berkeley real estate values.

    A longer list could be made.  

    Charles Siegal brought up Jane Jacobs the other day in connection to urban design.  It’s important not to forget that some of her most interesting contributions were not about design per se, but about the economics of cities.   Jacobian economics emphasized import replacement and the importance of a city being a net exporter — empirically, these are strengths of historically vibrant, economically healthy cities. 

    If LBL settled in Berkeley,  a fraction of wages and service and equipment budgets would recirculate, supporting some important replacement, but the net export from Berkeley would be mainly cash.   Most of the money would come in to town, not be spent in Berkeley, and leave town.

    If LBL settles in Richmond, presumably we’ll see slightly less of those wages and budgets, but every penny of what we do see will improve our balance of trade — and all without making a long-term commitment to forgo still more property taxes.

  • http://www.webhamster.com/ The Sharkey

    If the Berkeley anti-development cabal is correct, and the idea of locating a second LBL campus in our city is such a terrible idea, why is Richmond fighting so hard to bring it there?

    At the risk of being too blunt, the idea that a campus in a neighboring town is going to help Berkeley is a bit daffy.

    Has Pixar’s location in Emeryville helped Berkeley, or has it helped Emeryville? Do the Target stores in Albany or Emeryville help Berkeley? Would someone working in Richmond be more likely to drive out of their way to Berkeley to do their shopping, or would Richmond be more likely to see an increase in business located conveniently near the Lab location? Does it seem like most of the out-of-town criminals in Berkeley come from Richmond, or from Oakland?

    It’s starting to look an awful lot like Berkeley is determined to continue repeating past mistakes…

    http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/25/us/high-tech-gets-low-priority-in-berkeley.html

  • Bruce Love

    You’re engaging in a kind of  over-simplification of political discourse that serves no one well.   Things are not so simple as pro- vs. anti- development.

    In the case of LBL, for Richmond, there is nearly no downside.   They won’t give up any property tax – the Field Station is already university property.  They don’t have to manage the project where there is heavy contention for various kinds of use – the land is already UC’s.    Of all the things UC might eventually choose to impose on Richmond at the Field Station, LBL is one of the most desirable.

    Berkeley is the opposite: the development would forfeit property tax for us;  it would have to manage competing uses in tight space; the spaces on the table aren’t otherwiwse limited to what UC decides to do with them.  We’re better off holding out for tax-paying commercial uses, ideally uses that improve our balance of trade.

    The comparison to Pixar is obfuscatory.  On the one hand, Berkeley has in fact managed to import some Pixar wages and other spending – so yes, we have benefited.   On the other hand, yes, Berkeley didn’t get those property taxes but not because of anti-development objections (as even the article you link to observes).   In any event, the property tax considerations don’t apply to LBL (or apply negatively).  If you think that the more promiscuous nature of Emeryville’s development policies are such a smashing success, I do wonder why you (apparently) live in Berkeley.

    Similarly, the case of a Target store (low wage jobs, heavy traffic, pays property and sales taxes, etc.) is very different from the case of LBL (high wage jobs, much less traffic, no direct tax revenues).   You construct a straw man when you try to lump all of these different things into one big pile that is resisted by some mythical caricature of “anti-development” types. 

  • http://www.webhamster.com/ The Sharkey

    Thanks for the ad hominem attacks, Bruce. Telling me to effectively G.T.F.O. of Berkeley if I don’t like the way Berkeley’s city government is run is immature even for you. I guess you’ve decided to ignore the calls for civility from the moderators of this site.

    I’m a property-tax-paying Berkeley homeowner asking questions, and you’re stating your opinions and assumptions as facts while ignoring anything that doesn’t directly agree with them (*cough* Albany *cough*).

    I’d say that I’m shocked that you can’t/won’t see the difference, but I’ve been here too long to be surprised by it any more.

  • LBL

    As an LBNL employee who is working at an off-site building and in no way, shape or form has anything to do with the PR dept. here, I want to add that aside from other locations being very interesting, there are larger scientific issues with moving to Richmond, Albany or Alameda.  One must remember that since LBNL was an off shoot from UC Berkeley, the ties are very strong.  A lot of the scientists use facilities located on campus for their research.  Moving miles away already has impacted science as well as recruiting new young promising scientists since our connection to UCB is being stretched.

    No matter what happens (new wonderful bay view location vs. cramped older space near UCB), no one will be happy as there will be lots of money to be spent, people to be moved and differing opinions.  We all lose no matter what.

    And a note to The Sharkey – We are now at 717 Potter St., right near the Berkeley-Emeryville border and I usually head into Emeryville rather than Berkeley because there is more going on that way.  If Berkeley gets the site, Berkeley will get a kick start for small businesses and a lot of revenue from our employees.  The whole West Berkeley plan would succeed.  You are right on with your points about locations near Berkeley not helping as much as “they” might think.

  • LBL

    As an LBNL employee who is working at an off-site building and in no way, shape or form has anything to do with the PR dept. here, I want to add that aside from other locations being very interesting, there are larger scientific issues with moving to Richmond, Albany or Alameda.  One must remember that since LBNL was an off shoot from UC Berkeley, the ties are very strong.  A lot of the scientists use facilities located on campus for their research.  Moving miles away already has impacted science as well as recruiting new young promising scientists since our connection to UCB is being stretched.

    No matter what happens (new wonderful bay view location vs. cramped older space near UCB), no one will be happy as there will be lots of money to be spent, people to be moved and differing opinions.  We all lose no matter what.

    And a note to The Sharkey – We are now at 717 Potter St., right near the Berkeley-Emeryville border and I usually head into Emeryville rather than Berkeley because there is more going on that way.  If Berkeley gets the site, Berkeley will get a kick start for small businesses and a lot of revenue from our employees.  The whole West Berkeley plan would succeed.  You are right on with your points about locations near Berkeley not helping as much as “they” might think.

  • Charles_Siegel

    Thanks for citing me.  However, my name is spelled Siegel, not Siegal.  Both spellings are used, but I use the former.

    I think your reasoning is convoluted:

    – Economic development in Richmond creates demand for Berkeley “destination” businesses.
    [CS: but economic development in Berkeley creates even more demand for Berkeley businesses]

    – Berkeley real estate is convenient to both the Field Station and the top of the hill.
    [CS: but Berkeley real estate would be even more convenient to a Berkeley location and the top of the hill}

    and so on.

    In terms of city planning, the salient issue is that the Richmond site is almost completely auto-dependent.  No doubt, the lab would run a shuttle bus there, but it would be inconvenient for most people to take the two-step transit trip of getting to  this shuttle bus and then riding the shuttle bus.   Virtually all of those trips from Richmond to Berkeley “destination” businesses would be car trips.

    By contrast, the proposed location on San Pablo is on a transit corridor – a much more environmentally sound sight for this sort of major development.

    In the Richmond location, the lab would be something like a suburban office park.  This sort of location is supported by people who just want to push development away from themselves.

    In the San Pablo Ave location, the lab would be part of a walkable, transit-oriented urban neighborhood.   This sort of location is supported by those of us who want to reduce overall auto-dependency, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.

  • Zelda Bronstein

    Hi Charles: You twice mention “the proposed location on San Pablo.” What exactly do you have in mind? None of the three Berkeley or part-Berkeley finalists are on San Pablo Avenue. Aquatic Park is far from San Pablo and from public transit. Ditto for the Golden Gate Fields site. The Wareham facility in Berkeley is closer than either of the other two, but hardly convenient to users of either BART or AC Transit. Zelda Bronstein

  • Bruce Love

    Regarding the name:  I was fretting over “ie” vs. “ei” — and even double checked! — not thinking the second syllable was risk prone.  Sorry.   Hopefully the spelling will now “gel” in my mind. 

    Briefly: in your comparisons (e.g., are Berkeley destinations helped more by development in Berkeley than Richmond?) — you still can’t ignore the opportunity cost on commercial / industrial space property taxes against that;  and you can’t deny that a flourishing Richmond could only possibly make development in Berkeley easier.   In other words, it’s awfully close, either way and neither of us should claim certainty about which possibility is definitively “better”.   If we guesstimate that Berkeley comes out about the same either way, we ought to recognize that the Berkeley locations can support all kinds of other uses — but this is one of the best possible opportunities for the Field Station.    Just like a homeowner wants a neighbor’s property to be valuable, Berkeley has a lot of reason to support the Richmond bid.

    On the car issue: this is all short-haul, low-volume city driving, for the most part.   I think that that’s sustainable, desirable, and necessary.   It’s not much at all like a suburban office park.    The suggestion of Dublin that was floated early on …. that’s like a suburban office park.   The people that commute 20-60 miles each way in many parts of the Bay Area… there’s your main problem, right there.    Getting across a few urban miles at the volume of an LBL?   We can tune that up into quite sustainable pretty quickly — heck that’s half of what those folks work on.

    And, man, this:  “This sort of location is supported by people who just want to push development away from themselves”  Nonsense.  Oh, please, oh, please, can’t we end the false polarization?  The Richmond Field Station is an attractive idea for people who want to save the UC system money;  for people who want to maximize LBL’s growth potential;  for people who want to see the Field Station put to good use;  for people who want to live next to a Richmond that is doing better rather than worse;  etc.    That false oversimplification of NIMBY vs. anarcho-capitalist-libertarians (or whatever, pick your favorite dichotomy) really polarizes these discussions in a useless if not harmful way.

  • Charles_Siegel

    Zelda, I was thinking of Wareham.  Isn’t that on San Pablo Ave? 

  • LBL

    We are on Potter St., near the corner of Ashby and 7th.  Most of the Wareham stuff is down here close to the water.

  • Charles_Siegel

    There doesn’t seem to be much of an opportunity cost to using the Wareham site.  That general area is very underused.  Adding LBL there would generate many new businesses on underused nearby sites, where no one will open a business or develop property in the foreseeable future unless LBL is built . 

    It is like a suburban office park in that it is a single-land use, not within walking distance of any other uses.  Jane Jacobs was one of the early proponents of the idea that mixed uses within walking distance of each other are better in many ways than isolated single uses. Today, virtually everyone who is conversant with city planning agrees.

  • Charles_Siegel

    My mistake.  I was actually thinking of the Marchant Building.  http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/03/18/fourth-berkeley-site-proposed-for-lbl-second-campus/

    I guess that has dropped out of the running.  Wareham is not as good, but you still might get some sort of walkable neighborhood around the lab development there. 

  • http://www.webhamster.com/ The Sharkey

     Thanks for adding your perspective to the mix. Hearing from someone who currently works for the labs about how you actually interact with the communities around your workplace is probably more useful than any of the opinions and analysis that the rest of us can offer.

    Friends of mine who work for Pixar patronize businesses in a very similar fashion. There may be the ever-so-slight benefit to Berkeley, but most of them end up spending their dollars for lunch and after-work retail shopping in the neighborhoods right around the offices.

  • Charles_Siegel

    “We’re better off holding out for tax-paying commercial uses”

    And would you actually back the development of those commercial uses when they were proposed?  Would you back the denser proposals because they generate more taxes?

  • Bruce Love

    It would depend on the specific proposals.  In general, from what I’ve seen of your ideas of best development policies, I only agree with some of what you say.    So, yes, there are some kinds of development I would support and others not — I doubt I my views would be entirely consistent with yours.

  • http://www.webhamster.com/ The Sharkey

    What is the last commercial development proposal in the City of Berkeley that you supported?

  • joanwinnek

    Sorry to interrupt the serious (I think, I can’t be bothered to read it) intercourse among three regulars, but this is what struck me. Capitelli says lattes are more available in Berkeley! Of course that must dictate UC decisions–while students are expected to mire themselves in debt in an economy that may never pay them for their hard-earned education.

  • Fran

    I feel like a broken record. The proposed Berkeley sites, according to USGS maps, appears to be in a liquefaction zone. UC cannot develop there. 

  • Alan Tobey

    One of the unexpected factors that will change the framework for the LBNL site selection is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s forthcoming regional transportation plan, required by SB 375. It’s currently called the TSP — Transportation Sustainability Plan — and will likely appear ambitiously progressive when publicly announced this fall.

    In the East  Bay the major component is called the Interstate 80 Corridor Quickway Service.  It’s designed to move auto commuters off the freeway by extending Bus Rapid Transit style service south beyond the El Cerrito Del Norte terminus of the current routes from Marin and Solano counties and on as far as SF over the bridge.  The proposed routing in Berkeley would serve the area of the West Berkeley Project, perhaps in the longer term using the railroad right of way after initial service on 6th/7th Sts (specifics are not yet in the proposal).

    This new BRT service would not well serve the proposed Richmond Field Station LBNL site, but it would greatly increase transit options for the Golden Gate Fields, Bolivar Drive and Berkeley/Emeryville alternatives. (The Alameda site has the most limited regional transit potential.)

    Timeframe for realizing this vision is still uncertain, but it matches the 10-20 year horizon of the revised West Berkeley Project plan that the council will finally wrap up later this year.   The prospective availability of better regional transit options may even give the Council more courage to actually allow more housing in west Berkeley to serve the thousands of new jobs expected — a key component of the “complete communities” approach that SB375 strongly encourages cities to embrace..
     

  • http://www.webhamster.com/ The Sharkey

    An interesting point! Thank you for the information.
    Here’s a link to more information on SB 375 for anyone who wants to check it out:
    http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm

    I really wish the folks in charge would stop trying to get the public on-board with Bus Rapid Transit system schemes and start looking at plans for light rail. BRT systems may have dedicated lanes but they are still just bus systems, and may not actually be any cheaper than installing a more efficient light rail system.

  • Alan Tobey

    You shouldn’t be thinking of BRT only as a solely-dedicated line (which, by the way costs less than a quarter as much as a dedicated light-rail line).  As even LA is proving, BRT can integrate with existing freeway infrastructure by running buses in HOV  lanes with minor diversions for abutting stops.

    This is what is proposed for the northerly part of the I-80 corridor.  The motivation for diverging east through Berkeley and Emeryville is the realization that growt0h  from the WBP and potential LBNL concentrations will create a total of perhaps 50,000 jobs near the freeway that are not well served by existing transit — so all efforts need be made to prevent auto commuting being the default.

    And in fact the second-stage routing points toward dedicated lanes here if there is enough civic courage — for example, by lowering the railroad tracks so that BRT can run at grade above them (and east-west roads no longer need gated crossings).

    Time to give up the romance of the rails and the presumption that buses needed to imitate trains. We’re learning how to take advantage of the flexibility of hybrid infrastructure.

  • http://www.webhamster.com/ The Sharkey

    Romance of the rails? I’m more interested in light rail because of the smoother ride, more comfortable interiors, higher volume, and lower operating costs.

  • Zelda Bronstein

    Hi, Alan: There’s nothing “complete” about a community that lacks industrial capacity–meaning businesses that produce and move things–real things, as opposed to virtual ones. Thanks to the far-sighted West Berkeley Plan, Berkeley has about 300 such businesses, employing 6-7,000 people. The city’s industrial sector has and has continually had extremely low vacancy rates and high rents–indicating robust demand–and all this, in spite of a hostile City Hall and its developer allies. The West Berkeley Project, now moving through the council’s agenda, dismantles the zoning that supports the city’s industrial sector, opening the way for Emeryville-style development–meaning high-rise offices, condos and labs, along with an inflationary spiral of rents that will force out Berkeley’s manufacturers, wholesalers and warehousers and artists and artisans. It will also foreclose the expansion of Berkeley’s recycling and materials re-use enterprises. Tell me how how this promotes a “complete” community.

  • Anonymous

    Zelda — Your post diverges way off the original LBNL topic, so let’s save our public disagreements for an actual West Berkeley thread, presuming Berkeleyside someday covers the story more than perfunctorily.  I promise to avoid ranting, you might consider the same.

  • Charles_Siegel

    I also prefer light rail to BRT, primarily because it is a much more comfortable ride, as you say. 

    But light rail has much higher capital costs than BRT.  Given the limited funding that is available, it often makes sense to start with BRT and then upgrade to light rail.  If you design the BRT lanes properly, they can also be used as light rail lanes, when the funding is available to upgrade. 

    We can think of BRT as an affordable first step to light rail. 

    On the other hand, I have doubts about whether light rail makes sense on the freeway-based route that Alan is talking about here.  It makes more sense on local streets.

  • Charles_Siegel

    I also prefer light rail to BRT, primarily because it is a much more comfortable ride, as you say. 

    But light rail has much higher capital costs than BRT.  Given the limited funding that is available, it often makes sense to start with BRT and then upgrade to light rail.  If you design the BRT lanes properly, they can also be used as light rail lanes, when the funding is available to upgrade. 

    We can think of BRT as an affordable first step to light rail. 

    On the other hand, I have doubts about whether light rail makes sense on the freeway-based route that Alan is talking about here.  It makes more sense on local streets.

  • Zelda Bronstein

    Alan:  The original LBNL topic addresses the broad economic impact of an LBNL second campus on the community in which it will be built. As for ranting, speak for yourself.

  • Charles_Siegel

    A couple of months ago, Bruce love was opposing tax paying commercial development in West Berkeley on the grounds that we should reserve that land for manufacturing. 

    Now he is opposing development by a government entity on the grounds that we should reserve the land for tax paying commercial development.

    I am waiting for him to come full circle.  If someone proposes a large manufacturing development in West Berkeley, will he oppose it on the grounds that we should reserve the land for development by a government entity?

  • http://www.webhamster.com/ The Sharkey

    You make an excellent point, Charles. Turning BRT lanes into light-rail lines would be much easier from a political/funding standpoint than installing light rail from scratch. When evaluating BRT in Berkeley I hadn’t thought of it as a potential stepping-stone towards light rail. That certainly makes it much more appealing.

  • http://www.webhamster.com/ The Sharkey

    Which city is currently doing better economically, Emeryville or Berkeley?
     

  • Charles_Siegel

    I can’t resist linking to the pictures showing what it was like for me to walk to lunch when I lived in Emeryville. 
    http://preservenet.blogspot.com/2006/03/walking-to-lunch-in-emeryville.html

    It is possible to build new development in a way that creates an appealing, livable city, but I don’t think Emeryville is the model. 

  • Charles_Siegel

    sorry: i meant “when I worked in Emeryville,” not when I lived there.

  • Bruce Love

    Stop right there, buster.   You write falsely about my position when you begin:

    A couple of months ago, Bruce love was opposing tax paying commercial development in West Berkeley on the grounds that we should reserve that land for manufacturing.

    Manufacturing use is (usually) a commercial use.     I can not simultaneously oppose commercial development and endorse manufacturing.   I am in favor of commercial development in West Berkeley — such as development in favor of light manufacturing.

    What I am opposed to in the case of LBL is, rather than commercial use, governmental use and use for public-sector (that is, non-commercial) research.

    My reasons for this opposition include:  There is a better opportunity for the lab and the region in Richmond.  We are better off without the impact on property taxes.  The structural nature of this kind of public sector research makes it mainly a net importer of goods and services that doesn’t produce much recirculation of money in the town (or the region for that matter).

  • http://www.webhamster.com/ The Sharkey

    I agree that the city planning in Emeryville leaves a lot to be desired. I’m not trying to suggest that Berkeley should become a clone of Emeryville. I just don’t understand the heaps of abuse that some folks pile on Emeryville when they seem to be doing quite well for themselves.

    The part of Emeryville you worked in is plagued with offramps and overpasses. Even starting from scratch, it would be difficult to turn that area into a beautiful, walkable city even with the best planning imaginable.

  • Zelda Bronstein

    Interestingly, the distinction that Charles drew between commercial development and manufacturing is shared by our mayor. At the public hearing on the West Berkeley Project held at the council earlier this year, after representatives of WeBAIC–West Berkeley Artisans and Industrial Companies–the Tom Bates said, “We’ll now hear from the business community.” 

    In other words, industry isn’t really “business.” “Business” is real estate developers and representatives of the Lab and UC (for it was the latter who then stepped up to the mike).