Page One

2700 San Pablo Ave. proposal does not conform to zoning 

Editor:  

I would like to clarify a few points regarding your recent article about the appeal of the 2700 San Pablo project to the City Council.  

The design rejected unanimously by the ZAB contained 61 parking spaces.  

The new design offered on appeal to the City Council contains only 33, a 46 percent reduction in parking. The City Council would have to make special allowances for this inadequate parking because by law developers are required to provide a minimum of 44 spaces for this building.  

The West Berkeley Plan permits a maximum of 4 stories at nodal intersection such as Ashby or University. Leaving aside the fact that 2700 San Pablo is not at a node, the City Council should take note that zoning regulations permit a maximum of 4 stories only if the ground floor is commercial.  

Developers are allowed to exceed 3 stories only because ground floor commercial space helps create a thriving street life by providing shops and cafes. In their previous design, the developer had offered 100 percent ground floor commercial. But now in their appeal to City Council, the new design provides only 20.7 percent commercial. The rest of the ground floor is not open to the public. 

The Daily Planet reported that the new design provides 2,605 sq. ft for commercial space (out of 7,225 sq. ft on the ground floor). In my opinion, the design actually provides only 1,495 sq. ft. because the remaining "commercial space" is devoted to the building management office. 

It is questionable whether the West Berkeley Plan allows an office of this sort to qualify as commercial space. This 1,100 sq. ft. private office is larger than many of the homes in this neighborhood!  

Lastly, the developers (who have been waging legal battles to avoid being required to provide any affordable housing in apartment buildings) have used a loophole to provide less than the 20 percent affordable housing required by the city.  

What they have done is to provide 4 live-work spaces that are exempt from the affordable housing calculations -- the developers have carefully avoided stepping over the threshold of 5 or more live-work spaces which would have made them subject to being included in the affordable housing calculations.  

But in reality, affordable units comprise less than 17 percent of the dwelling units.  

This design is just as bad as the design rejected by the ZAB and in some ways worse; the 7-0 ZAB rejection of this project should not be overturned on appeal.  

Michael Goldberg 

Berkeley  

2700 San Pablo neighbors want smaller project  

in back yards 

Editor: 

Developer Patrick Kennedy is resorting to “name calling” and either gross exaggeration or a misunderstanding of the English language in his comments about opposition to his most recent development proposals at 2700 San Pablo Ave. 

First of all, calling those who disagree with him NIMBY's is just “name calling” that side steps the issues at hand. We want the site developed with low income housing! We want it in our back yard! We just want a building of reasonable scale. 

Furthermore, the “virulent” opposition he speaks of is nothing of the sort. Virulence means “an extreme bitterness or malignity of temper” - this in no way characterizes his opposition - who have been thoughtful and persistent. 

Just a few facts to throw in here:  

• The latest proposal is taller than the last one. 

• It does not meet established requirements for parking, 

• The fourth story does not meet zoning requirements unless the first story is all commercial. 

• It takes advantage of a loophole to provide less than 20 percent affordable housing. 

Incidentally, I live within 50 yards of the site. 

Bob Kubik 

Berkeley 

SJP opposes all discrimination 

Editor: 

I am dismayed by the lengths that people will go in accusing groups that speak out against Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians. In her April 26 letter to the editor, Ms. Liss airs several complaints about our recent sit-in on the Berkeley campus, claiming that we (Students for Justice in Palestine) were breeding “anti-semitism,” and accusing us of not addressing “the entire historical context” of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. 

These vague but serious accusations of prejudice are a common way of trying to silence those who dare to suggest that Israel needs to change its treatment of Palestinians. Students for Justice in Palestine is absolutely opposed to anti-semitism, and does not condone any anti-semitism expressed by people who joined us at our rally. In fact, the same principles that cause us to be opposed to anti-semitism compel us to speak out against the conditions under which Palestinians are forced to live.  

Robert Fisk wrote in the London Independent, “(T)here's not much difference between the tactics of the Israeli army in the occupied territories and that of the South African police. The apartheid regime had death squads, just as Israel has today. Yet even they did not use helicopter gunships and missiles.”  

Within Israel, Arab citizens were fired upon with live ammunition while demonstrating, 14 were killed. Israel has built ‘by-pass’ roads connecting the illegal settlements in the occupied territories that Palestinians are not allowed to use. Israel has been condemned for excessive violence, use of torture, and collective punishment by the UN commission on human rights, Amnesty International, and many other well-respected organizations. And yet, the United States still gives over $8 million in taxes to Israel in military aid every day. We, as Americans, are funding Israel’s destruction and dispossession of the Palestinian people and thus all must become aware of the facts of the situation and decide if we still want our aid going to the oppressive Israeli military.  

Sarah Weir 

Berkeley 

TV needs balance 

Editor:  

There are often discussions of various political and other problems being aired by T.V. stations; only the public stations are in the habit of using moderate and polite speakers, one-on-one or as members of panels.  

Commercial stations, more frequently than not, tend to put people with extreme opinions on the screen, thereby arousing strong positive or negative reactions of the audience. This procedure no doubt leads to greater audience interest, an increase in the number of listeners and a higher rating of such programs. The station then can charge more money for advertising. The latter is most probably the motive for using such procedures.  

Let me give a few specific examples: The T.V. and/or radio host Armstrong Williams happens to be a strong supporter of the current administration and is frequently invited to defend a particular conservative position. He may be a darling of right-wingers, but he grates on the conscience of liberal viewers.  

There also is Barbara Olson, the very conservative wife of an equally conservative candidate for a high position in the Justice Department. Olson is entitled to her opinions, but she was on the screen hundreds of times, on various programs, to deride Clinton and his administration throughout the duration of that administration and she exhibited extreme bias.  

When one looks on the other end of the spectrum, one rarely sees truly liberal experts being consulted.  

Max Alfert 

Berkeley 

Albany