Page One

Time for nay-sayers to accept Beth El project 

Editor:  

The rhetoric is getting ugly from opponents of Congregation Beth El’s plans to build a new synagogue just two blocks from its current location.  

A handful of people regularly write to the Berkeley Daily Planet to blast members of the congregation, staff of the City Attorney’s Office and Planning Department, and members of the Zoning Adjustments Board, which recently approved a permit for the project. These letters often contain inaccuracies and innuendo, and once their errors are pointed out, the same writers move on to decry some other perceived injustice.  

The truth is that the land on Oxford Street is zoned for a religious institution. Congregation Beth El bought the land from a church three years ago and, ever since, has been involved in scrupulously following every detail of the city’s complex, demanding, approval process.  

But, each step of the way, a few local naysayers have found flaws.  

They insisted vociferously that a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report commissioned by the city was wrong, when it concluded that the synagogue could be built without significant impact. Yet they offered no new evidence to counter the findings of the many experts who prepared the EIR.  

They cried “foul” when Berkeley’s Zoning Adjustments Board, appointed by the City Council, approved a permit for the project after holding months of hearings and examining hundreds of pages of information. After this decision was made, opponents of the project really tossed reason and fairness to the winds.  

They accused the congregation, city staff, and some ZAB and City Council members of colluding to exercise undue “power.” Those very serious allegations, suggesting a conspiracy and verging on libel, were not backed up with any evidence, because there was none.  

Isn’t it time to turn down the rhetoric, to rely on facts and established procedures, and to let the progress work? And isn’t it time for Berkeley citizens to follow the lead of the ZAB and come together to find the best ways to make this project work for the neighborhood, for the congregation, and for the Berkeley community which, even opponents acknowledge, the congregation serves very well? 

Joan B. Ominsky 

Berkeley 

Thanks for end to estate tax 

Editor: 

I am greatly relieved that the U.S. Congress has seen the light and is preparing to extinguish the dreaded estate tax that has unfairly plagued wealthy Americans for so long. This legislation was stupidly passed by prior legislators who had the erroneous impression that it might be detrimental to a democracy to have some citizens acquire too much wealth and the power that often seems to go with it.  

Fortunately today we do not have to worry about imbalances of power and wealth and threats to the political will of average people. But – just to be safe – I think the Congress should consider a few amendments to its bill so that all Americans can benefit from its passage, not just the 5 percent or so who may have enough assets to qualify for estate tax relief.  

First, this legislation should include the provision that every American be given some land. As everyone knows this was the right granted early settlers which allowed many of them to develop real estate empires that were frequently passed on to heirs.  

Secondarily, this legislation should provide every American equal access to capital. Unfortunately, and I'm sure unintentionally, it is being unevenly and absurdly distributed to those Americans who already own substantial amounts of it. As I understand it many Americans would like to be able to borrow money to start their own businesses and experience the relative independence and potential prosperity that business ownership may afford.  

Of course this amended legislative act should also allow new business owners to control a particular segment of the market so that they do not have to compete with individuals who were either early into a market position or inherited a market position from their ancestors.  

It is also imperative that these new businessmen and women, and/or land holders, continue to benefit from the kind of tax legislation that benefits large estates and businesses that currently have access to these advantages. 

Finally, this legislation should include an excess profits tax so that all the employees, and their descendants, who have labored long and hard so that a relatively small number of people can benefit from the wealth they generated can also begin to rapidly build new estates from the unintentionally excessive profit hoarding of their benign employers. 

With these amendments our Congressmen and women may continue the proud tradition of supporting equal opportunity and the pursuit of freedom, independence, and prosperity for all. I know that they do not stand for anything less and that they are united in their opposition to recreating a feudal society where wealth and power come from birthrights rather than personal merit. 

James Cisney 

Berkeley 

Gaia: view 1 

Editor: 

Mr. Evan McDonald's April 4th letter to the editor in the Berkeley Daily Planet is full of errors.  

He says that the Gaia building’s roofline stands at a council-approved height of 87 feet. The City Council never approved a height for the roofline, it did approve a height for the building. That was 87 feet and 7 stories as stated in the use permit. If one takes the plans submitted to the city for the project, measures from the ground to the top of the building, one gets 116 feet. If Mr. McDonald wants to claim the building is only 20 feet taller than council approved instead of 29 feet taller he should describe how he is measuring.  

Mr. McDonald claims that the 7th floor loft space is a mezzanine, yet it covers about 50 percent of the room it opens up into according to the plans submitted to the city. Only 1/3 of the floor area is allowed to be covered by a mezzanine otherwise the space counts as a story. The City Council did not approve the 7th floor loft space as a mezzanine and did not authorize an area greater than 1/3 for this space. The City Council also did not approve the offices above the 87 foot level which also count as an extra floor. These offices also violate the height limit because they are not set back at least two feet from the edge of the building. Since the elevator is taller than necessary, it is not exempt from being counted as an extra floor and should actually be counted as two floors.  

The second floor, which Mr. McDonald also calls a mezzanine, also covers more than 1/3 or the room it opens up into. A staff report misstated the definition of a mezzanine, but that doesn't mean the second floor is a mezzanine. To change the definition of mezzanine council would have to pass an ordinance. This wasn't done so there are actually no mezzanines in the Gaia building. Gaia stands 116 feet and 11 stories tall, a tribute to city corruption. 

Mr. McDonald is right to suggest that we not lose sight of the big picture. Had Gaia been what it was represented to the public there would be no grounds for complaints-but then it would only be 87 feet and 7 stories tall. 

I hope there is more housing built in Berkeley, but lets not cut special deals and evade our ordinances. It is time to put an end to the corruption. It is also time to look at the low income housing! 

Tim Hansen  

Berkeley 

Gaia: another view 

Editor: 

The Daily Planet's April 4 letters page was its best ever. This was not least because of the wonderful satire contributed by Evan McDonald, manager of the Gaia Building project. Mr. McDonald told us: “The Gaia building is seven stories high, not eleven as Mr.. [Art] Goldberg claims, with the roofline located at the council-approved height of 87 feet.” 

Ha ha ha! I was already laughing so hard that I almost skipped over his punch line: 

“The Gaia project includes two mezzanines: one at the first level and one at the seventh. Mezzanines are not considered stories under the city’s zoning ordinance... .” 

Ha ha ha ha ha! Get it? Two of the floors aren't really floors – so we should just pretend they aren't there! But wait, he topped this: 

“...the highest point of the Gaia building, at the top of its elevator tower, is 107 feet high, not 116 feet as claimed by Goldberg.” 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Get it? We've built at least 20 feet above “the council-approved height of 87 feet,” but we're quibbling about the last 9 feet. Haw! And wait, there's more: 

“This height is required to provide elevator access to the roof deck and management offices – as required by the American with Disabilities Act...The determination of maximum building height doesn’t include accessory structures such as elevator towers.” 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! So the 20 (or is it 29?) foot “elevator tower” doesn't count, either! And we should pretend it isn't there, and blame the ADA to boot! Haw, haw! I'm just glad I put Mr. McDonald's parody aside long enough to stop laughing and regain control, or I might have missed his wonderful final punch (actually, pun-ch) line: 

“...we sincerely hope that the public not lose sight of the big picture: The Gaia project... .” 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! No worries there. With this leviathan casting the Public Library in near-permanent shadow – and looming over the poor little landmarked buildings next door – I'm sure Berkeley residents will never, ever, lose sight of “the big picture” above Allston Way. 

Too bad April Fool's Day fell on a Sunday, so the Daily Planet didn't publish on the day that Mr.. McDonald no doubt intended his piece to appear. Still, I enjoyed his work immensely, and I hope we'll see more parodies from him in the future. But although we can all enjoy a great Swiftian parody in print, perhaps we should think seriously about whether we want to let developers pull more pranks on us like the building itself. 

Michael Katz 

Berkeley