Page One

Kudos to Planet 

Editor: 

I moved to Berkeley in 1979 for college. Over the years, I’ve moved out of town a few times, but always came back to the Bay Area. I have seen Berkeley change so much over the years and the thing that I really noticed was the dying of the sense of community that made Berkeley so popular and famous in the past.  

When I found the Berkeley Daily Planet, I was pleasantly surprised to see that it specifically covered news in the Berkeley area and the coverage helps re-establish that sense of community. The news articles are excellent and the quality of writing keeps improving with every issue. 

I especially love the “Out & About” section. I hope that section expands and covers some of the UC and local high school activities as well.  

Keep up the good work! 

Bruce Satow, 

Berkeley 

Tiny apartments not for rabbits 

The Daily Planet Received this letter directed to District 5 council candidate Carrie Olson: 

Dear Carrie Olson, 

I am not a rabbit. Small apartments are not rabbit warrens as you have said outright or intimated many, many times. All you against “high-rise” transit centers, all you privileged characters who bought houses in Berkeley when they were cheap, all you who made your big money fair and square or inherited your money or place in your house from your parents in this insanely expensive real estate market or have connections in town who have found rare inexpensive deals.... You’ve got yours and your interests appear at first glance to be antithetical to the following: Everyone desperate for housing or housing security including students, elderly, disabled, low to moderate income people, transit users, environmentalists, bicyclists, community gardeners, creek lovers and just about everyone else. In fact, higher density housing near transit serves us all. It would seem ironic, but it is actually normal three-dimensional geometry that higher density centers, at second glance, make neighborhoods quieter and more pleasant too. 

When Carrie Olson calls the Gaia Building a “rabbit warren for students,” when hundreds of students are desperate for housing, it’s her privilege denying housing to hundreds of students, and deprecating students at the same time. Not very democratic for a candidate for what should be a democratic City Council. Most people who live in low density Berkeley neighborhoods live so far away from downtown they can't even see it from their property, yet many among them work to prevent a kind of building that could provide realistic housing for others. Let’s be clear about this being strictly a (not necessarily rich) elite, a privileged class against those needing shelter and the full range of benefits of life in Berkeley. Berkeley's pretty good about providing cultural services and some low income benefits to its own, but the low-rise, don’t-build-adequate-housing faction is definitely against all those people and interests listed above and that faction is very restrictive as to who “its own” are going to be. 

Three times I have seen Councilmember Kriss Worthington say publicly (because he thinks it is politically popular) “taller buildings don’t mean more housing.” Well of course not if they are office buildings, but that’s not what people are supposed to understand, or of course not if they are $3,000 a month apartments and you are talking to lower income people. 

A building the size of the Gaia building with its 91 “rabbit warren” units compared to small one story houses is equal to the restoration of 30 blocks of creek restoration (60 units), 15 community gardens expanded by one whole property (15 units) and 16 properties worth of expanded parks for picnics, Frisbee, and volleyball. 

Richard Register 

Berkeley 

size of the Gaia Building simply makes it possible for about 150 people who previously were excluded from Berkeley to enrich our downtown, support BART and AC Transit and lend us their talents and citizenship and solve their own problem of housing. To make it personal, if not for “substandard” “undersized” units in town I would have had to leave years ago.  

Reminder: Though I’ve lived in many small places here I am not a rabbit. And remember, all those other people who need housing ? they are not rabbits either. 

Richard Register 

Berkeley 

Re: Value of Development on Transit Corridors  

Your reader, Peter Teicher, postulates that, in general, the smaller and shorter the development the more desirable its "impacts" and ambience. In areas of 

exclusively single family homes, far from transit and commercial districts, this may be true. And the city's zoning ordinance reflects this. But on busy 

commercial corridors, within walking distance to transit and jobs, the city is better served by denser development and bigger buildings -- a phenomenon 

lucidly described by Jane Jacobs, 40 years ago, in  

The Death and Life of the Great American Cities, and championed today by the advocates of "Smart Growth."  

Denser development on transit corridors furnishes a number of social, economic, and aesthetic benefits that single-use, single story dwellings and businesses 

can never provide.  

These include:  

--More affordable housing. My firm has built or is building more than 50 low income residences that would never have been built, but for the 

densities of the buildings they are in. Ditto for the 150 moderate priced units that were also part of these developments. With single family homes in 

Berkeley now averaging more than $400,000, infill projects are only hope for affordable housing.  

-More housing accessible to the disabled and elderly. The projects I build are also among the few fully accessible housing developments in the 

city. The local non-profit developers are also doing a good job in this regard, but neither of us can come close to meeting the demand. Berkeley has had 

almost no development in the past 20 years, and is the only city in Northern California to have actually lost housing in that time. The only economical way 

to address these concerns it to build multi-family projects like that proposed on San Pablo Ave.  

--Improved neighborhood retail opportunities and amenities. The additional customers and the commercial spaces provided in dense mixed-use 

buildings furnishes affordable space for small, neighborhood serving businesses. (A neighborhood cafe in located in every sizeable multifamily housing 

project I have built in Berkeley, benefiting everyone in the surrounding area. Two local non-profit agencies also have space in these buildings.)  

--Improve the safety and security of the area. The high level of crime in this part of Berkeley -- last February, in one night there was a shooting and 

a knifing within one block of the proposed project at 2700 San Pablo -- is, in part, owing to the lack of development in this area, and the attendant "eyes on 

the street" that help to keep a neighborhood secure. New residents here will improve security.  

-- Less car dependency and improved envirornmental conditions. Infill development on transit corridors relieves pressure from developing 

greenfields in surrounding areas, and also serves to locate housing closer to jobs, thereby reducing traffic in the immediate area. Many, if not most, of the 

residents in my infill projects walk to work, bike, or take public transit. Why? Because it is simply easier, cheaper, and, most important, readily available.  

For these reasons and others, my developments have consistently been endorsed by The Sierra Club, Urban Ecology, Eco-City Builder, The California Oaks 

Foundation, The Conservation Land Group, and many others.  

--Improved tax base for other city services. The construction of multi-family housing on developable land in the commercial corridors adds 

significant property tax and sales tax revenue to the city coffers. On the property I developed at 1910 Oxford St. University Ave. (Where Yali's Oxfords St. 

cafe located) the assessed value of the property went from $400,000 to $5.7 million, and net increase of $5.3 million to the city's tax rolls.  

In short, there are significant benefits to the development of infill projects that, I believe, Mr. Teicher, chooses to ignore. The "oversized" project he criticizes 

-- at 2700 San Pablo (at Carlton) -- is in fact within the limits of the zoning for the area -- which, is not a single family neighborhood, as he avers, but rather 

a mix-used district allowing commercial, residential,and industrial uses. (It also has a traffic count of 29,500 cars a day -- a higher amount of traffic than 

University Ave.)  

Development like this will improve the city, and protect existing neighborhoods. I suggest Mr. Teicher visit the several other infill projects in the city I have 

built and confirm this for himself.  

Patrick Kennedy  

Panoramic Interests  

1910 Oxford St.  

Berkeley, CA 94704  

Subject:  

A Reply to "Housing should be accessible" Letter - 9/21 

Date:  

Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:51:53 -0700 

From:  

"Howie & Connie Muir"  

To:  

My phone number is 848-3175. 

Editor: 

I would like to support Dina Valicenti's letter (September 21) advocating 2700 San Pablo Avenue as an excellent site for apartments, and her appreciation for the developers' 

intention to augment the availability of affordable and wheelchair accessible housing. 

As a neighbor to the proposed project and one who must live with its potentially looming scale, I would also point out, however, that housing stock -- affordable, commercial, 

and wheelchair accessible -- can also be expanded with a building that conforms to both the letter and the spirit of the West Berkeley Area Plan and does not exceed three 

stories.  

The surrounding neighborhood, which continues broadly to oppose the insensitive scale and height of the developers' proposals presented so far (designs of 4 and 5 stories), is 

likely to welcome warmly projects that conform to the Plan's goals and policies, which were carefully crafted to guide the future of West Berkeley, and that contribute to 

the wellbeing and quality of life of all residents, new and old -- and yet to be. 

Howie Muir 

Berkeley 

Subject:  

In Berkeley, How Do You Get More Housing? 

Date:  

Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:53:06 -0700 

From:  

Steven Donaldson  

To:  

opinion@berkeleydailyplanet.com 

IN BERKELEY- HOW DO YOU GET MORE HOUSING,WITHOUT BUILDING, AT A LOWER COST? -  

Or how to pull rabbits out of a hat you don't even have.  

It's never ending the complaints about housing. There's not enough - really? It's actually a fairly simple issue of supply and demand. 

You got 45 people in line trying to fill out an application for a two bedroom apartment and, well, only one person is gonna get it. 

Where do the other 44 people go?  

Even the most Marxian followers of economics understand the issues of supply and demand. If there isn't enough housing, well there 

just isn't enough. When market forces come to bare the owner of said units will charge as much as someone is willing to pay to live 

there - if allowed to. Yes, this is exploitive but so what. It's a result of one and one thing only - NOT ENOUGH HOUSING.  

We can have the most aggressive rent board in place going after those nasty landlords and trying to keep the evictions to a minimum, 

rents as low as possible, but does this solve the housing problem? Obviously not. If no one wants to rent a place the owner will lower 

the price (they have to if they want to rent it). If everyone wants to rent this place the landlord will raise the price as high as possible. 

But who cares about this. Pricing isn't even the factor. The real issue is too many people seeking too few units. It doesn't matter what 

they cost. If you want to live in this town - get in line!  

The magical answer is - abra cadabra! - build more housing. Many noted political figures in this Great-Town-of-Berkeley have 

advocated for more and more and more low income housing, further restrictions on rent increases, more controls on initial pricing, to 

some how, miraculously, create lower cost housing (as a fact, there is absolutely no information on controlling rents in ANY city in the 

United States that has, in any way, reduced the vacancy rate, reduced rent, or improved the housing stock for citizens of these cities. In 

fact, it generally has made the problem worse for poor people with limited incomes).  

We need to change zoning, improve and streamline the building process to add more housing stock to the city of Berkeley - and yes 

help out folks with lower incomes. Virtually all of San Pablo Avenue is one story store fronts. Solano Avenue, University, parts of 

Shattuck -much the same. They all have great potential for more housing with easy public transit access. This whole area could be 

gradually transformed into a variety of 2 to 4 story multi-use buildings, adding vitality and street life to each neighborhood including 

restaurants, cafes, produce stores, book stores - and hey my favorite-- pubs!  

Anybody ever gone to Italy or France - or how about the Wrigglyville neighborhood in Chicago- a classic mix of working class, ethnic 

groups, yuppies and everything else? These are all 2 to four story or more places. These places have vitality, a mix of food, business 

and residential that is wonderful, lively, fun and part of community. In addition, much of West Berkeley could be transitioned to mix 

use, loft housing work space - again with a diversity of business, retail, living space and community.  

This Town and the battles that get fought are full of contradictions. More housing but no more building, but low cost housing, but tight 

rent control and an extremely scrutinizing Spanish-Inquisition-Style review process, where everyone's opinion - no matter how 

factually based, has major impact on the final decision. This city, in many ways is very conservative, reactionary and very naive in its 

perceptions of what can work and add to the vitality of community.  

We continually focus on the minutia and then scream about how the big problems never get fixed. You can not solve a problem of this 

nature without a cooperative effort, a vision for the future that includes more density and understanding that you can't have cheaper 

housing without more housing and you can't have more housing without building it.  

Well so much for my perspective on housing rationality - gee is this a politically correct point of view?  

Another commentary from a Long-Time-Berkeley-Resident (who by the way lives only 3 blocks from San Pablo Avenue and can go 

to REI, Walgreens and Pyramid Alehouse in while walking my dog!).  

Steven Donaldson  

Hello again Judith, my phone # is 843-0701 ext 307  

Steven Donaldson  

President, Creative Director  

BGDI Design & Communications  

510.843.0701 ext 307  

510. 469-6393 cell  

http://www.bgdi.com  

Accelerating Brands* --  

Creative Strategies that Build Value and Deliver Results  

Subject:  

perspectives 

Date:  

Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:12:12 -0700 

From:  

"Steve Finacom"  

To:  

opinion@berkeleydailyplanet.com 

September 21, 2000 

Dear Planet Staff: 

I would like to contribute the following as a possible "Perspective" piece. 

The word count is 772. 

Sincerely, 

Steven Finacom 

510-845-3203 

home e-mail, stuart60@pacbell.net 

2308 Russell Street, Berkeley, California, 94705 

---------------------------------------------------- 

Some neighborhood residents in West Berkeley are fighting a Patrick Kennedy 

housing development, arguing it is too large and out of character for San 

Pablo Avenue. 

The City is debating whether and how new housing fits into the next General 

Plan. 

Richard Register's EcoCity Builders organization has stirred up the pot 

again with an advertisement pushing their fantasy agenda of affordably 

priced high-rise apartment towers in the downtown. 

We have a lot of sound and fury and angst, but little resolution. 

Berkeley's housing controversies need to be placed in a historical context 

which can suggest workable solutions that permit development while 

protecting existing neighborhoods. 

Up through the early 20th century, Berkeley was largely a town of single 

family homes with numerous undeveloped lots and tracts. But a local 

development boom followed the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire. Most 

of the new development involved creation of new "streetcar suburbs" of 

detached homes. 

In the 'teens and 'twenties a new sort of development started to appear 

along the streetcar lines; three to five story apartment buildings, some 

built above commercial storefronts. Many of these buildings still stand 

along University Avenue, College Avenue, Telegraph Avenue, Oxford Street, 

and smaller streets around the UC campus. 

The Depression, followed by World War II, halted most development. And 

when development resumed in the late 1940s through the 1950s, the private 

automobile had become king. Car oriented uses?gas stations, repair shops, 

single story commercial buildings with adjacent parking lots?spread along 

the boulevards instead of apartment buildings. Some multi-story buildings 

were even demolished. Buses replaced streetcars, erasing a crucial element 

of Berkeley's past. 

In this new climate, from the late 1950s through the early 1970s, the 

boulevards were left to auto-oriented commercial uses profitable for their 

property owners. Apartment development, encouraged by the City, 

leapfrogged into the adjacent single family neighborhoods, demolishing 

homes and fragmenting blocks. 

Berkeley residents quite sensibly reacted in the 1970s with a number of 

measures?the Neighborhood Protection Ordinance, downzoning of residential 

neighborhoods, and the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. Combined with a 

cooling housing market and recessions in the 70s and 80s these halted the 

almost random apartment infill. 

Berkeley was left with car-oriented main streets lined with low-rise 

commercial development and, in some areas, a patchwork of single family 

homes chaotically mixed with intrusive apartment complexes. Yet the 

underlying structure that once defined the community?a grid of transit 

corridors on main streets laced through pleasant neighborhoods of detached 

homes?remained. 

Most recently, as housing costs and demand have sharply risen, developers 

have started to return to the main avenues to construct mid-sized 

three-to-five story apartment and condominium buildings. But many of 

these projects?most recently, Kennedy's San Pablo Avenue development--have 

been vehemently fought by some residents of adjacent neighborhoods. It 

seems to have become an article of faith among many "community activists" 

that this is the wrong sort of development. 

I disagree. Infill housing development along the Avenues should be 

encouraged, not on every lot, but on many sites. Much of University 

Avenue, San Pablo Avenue, south Shattuck, and parts of other streets like 

south Telegraph could very easily accommodate scores of buildings providing 

hundreds of apartment units. 

Is this sort of development destructive of neighborhoods? I don't believe 

so. Mid-rise housing on the main avenues can be surprisingly low impact and 

unobtrusive if it is well designed and placed. And it can provide a 

critical mass of residents who can be drawn onto light rail and shop at 

local businesses. 

Do I argue, like Patrick Kennedy, from the perspective of a resident of a 

protected single-family enclave in the East Bay Hills? Hardly. I live 

in a south Berkeley flatlands neighborhood, a block from Telegraph Avenue. 

I don't want to see change to the core character of my neighborhood of 

detached single-family homes. But when I walk daily along the busy streets 

that border it?particularly Telegraph and Shattuck--I pass by many sites 

where Berkeley should welcome mid-rise apartment or condominium buildings. 

The alternatives to mid-rise housing include more of the same old 

car-oriented development characteristic of the 1950s and 60s?single story 

commercial structures along the main streets, depending on drivers (for 

example, Blockbuster Video downtown and at San Pablo and University). An 

upward curve?and curse?of more car traffic on Berkeley's streets. Political 

pressure from developers to overturn the protections that safeguard 

Berkeley's intact single-family neighborhoods. More schemes, such as 

those of Mr. Register, that would change the whole face of the community 

and pack the Downtown with high-rises. 

This is a future that Berkeley doesn't need. An alternative, drawn from 

our past, is at hand. We would be sensible to use it. 

Steven Finacom is a LeConte neighborhood resident who has served on 

Berkeley's Landmarks Commission and Rent Stabilization Board.