A further observation: Marcy Wong is a fine architect. She designed the fire house at 3000 Shasta. The new 2707 Rose project may very well eventually find its way into the Berkeley Architectural Heritage list.

I am opposed to this project for many reasons, but I appreciate hearing from my neighbors who support this project. I too am concerned about the harmony among my neighbors, and I hope we can agree to disagree with respect and civility. Whether you are for or against this project and support the process or not, I hope we can all agree that everyone has a right to express their opinion, that we all have a right to all the information necessary (as required by law) to form an educated opinion about what is being proposed, and that the same rules apply to everyone.

I have to say that right now, this is my main objection. While four of the six immediate households were contacted (as required by law) prior to the submittal of the plans, I didn’t even hear about this project until a week before the ZAB hearing. The ZAB simply rubber stamped it, with few questions, and a total disregard for a massive outpouring of objections from neighbors who had also just heard about it.

Those neighbors made a simple request for more time, both to the Kapors, then to the ZAB to understand the project better, and to be given at least some of the same courtesy that the Kapors lavished on those four households who are now so fervently supporting this project.

I think the question must be asked, if these households were so supportive, why were they so careful not to breathe a word of this to their own neighbors who are opposing this project now? Why were their own neighbors given only two weeks notice when the new owners and their architect had been so “exceptionally collaborative, responsive and sensitive to [their] concerns and issues?” The Kapors reached out to their new neighbors, but that is where the outreach ended.

As to the appeal that was “signed by people who live beyond [their] immediate street,” that is incorrect. The appeal was signed and is supported by people who live on both Rose and Shasta (the immediate streets), as well as by other neighbors who will be negatively impacted by this project. And what does that say about the definition of a neighborhood? My neighbors and me, but not my neighbor’s neighbor? At least we can agree that the appeal raises concerns both about the project and the City’s process, but not for the same reasons.

The neighbors above who support this project have called “the eight month City Zoning process, preceded by the five months of working with the neighbors . . .complete and proper,” but the secrecy of that support belies this statement. It is just plain disingenuous to represent this as a 13 month long public process.

I think I can confirm the assumption made by the supporters that we all have some areas of agreement, like the willingness to welcome new neighbors and the interest in improving a blighted property. I do not agree that this proposal improves a blighted property, I believe it blights a very special place, and that it sets a precedent for further industrial blight.

As for a more intensive development, you may be sure that if there is this much opposition to this project, there would be as much or more opposition to rezoning this property for greater density. A more likely alternative would be finding someone who appreciated an historic house in a beautiful neighborhood and who wanted to restore it, even add to it if they needed more space. That would be a desirable neighbor, but we can’t always choose our neighbors. We can only hope that our new neighbors will be considerate and sensitive to their impact to the neighborhood.

I cannot agree that joining together in support of this project will go a long way toward healing the recent divisiveness in the neighborhood. The opponents of this project have done their homework, their fears appear to be warranted. I believe that it was the strategic decision not to include anyone except the four immediate neighbors in the process that has created the divisiveness, which is why the City of Berkeley specifically discourages this approach to projects of this nature.

The process that allowed this project to get as far as it has is as much of a testament to what is wrong with that process as the proposed house would be a monument to shortsighted self interest at the expense of the entire community.

The crux of the question is whether the proposed project truly worthy of R1 qualification? I think the evidence calls it into question. If it is not, then it should either go elsewhere or be scaled to be consonant with the zoning.

You are correct that the existing parcel could be subdivided. If that happened, it is likely that traffic from only one of the parcels would exit Rose Street. The potential impact to the Rose/Greenwood intersection area would be no different than existing conditions.

That means that it is entirely capable of sustaining 4 families (or more) in 4 houses with 4 garages and associated cars/traffic on that street.

Now ask yourself if the neighbors would prefer intermittent bursts of traffic resulting from occasional fundraisers, or the regular traffic of 4 different households with 8 – 20 people every day.

I submit the choice is obvious.

If this non-residential use of the proposed property comes to pass, there will be a significant increase in traffic – either up & down a narrow, poorly paved two block portion of Rose Street (with a sidewalk) or onto Greenwood Terrace (poorly paved & with no sidewalk) in a pedestrian area populated with a high percentage of elderly residents. I do not think this is consistent with R1 planning, and could introduce a serious traffic hazard to the neighborhood.

I think the ZAB should be digging a little deeper into the intended use of the property, and discern whether it accurately matches the definition of R1. It may be more appropriate adjacent to to UCB or in an area of town with better traffic resources.

What you are assuming is the bottom floor is not a finished floor – it’s basically the ‘crawl space’ under the house, though it’s about 7 or 8 feet tall. Certainly larger than my crawl space, but not un-characteristic of how houses are built in the hills. The engineering drawings linked to in the post make this a bit clearer I think.

I have no horse in the race, although I do think it’s fairly bizarre that “neighbors” who don’t seem to be directly impacted by the project care. I mean, I see your arguments, and if you were the builder’s friend, I can see trying to talk him out of the location, or of having a combined space. But I don’t understand why you (or the others who filed the appeal) give a damn. It kind of reminds me of the huge battle that the Berkeley Bowl West had to go through to get their permits — the anti-argument was greatly weakened when it turned out that the vast majority of residents and neighbors were in favor of the project — it was the rich folks in the hills with too much time and money to spare that were fighting the fight.

Yeah, no kidding. I guess I’m not being clear enough. I think the project is kinda cool in a lot of ways. I think it’s a little nuts to build on that scale in those hills so close to the fault but, hey, whatever. My general sentiment is that Mr. K. should be able to settle comfortably around these parts. I mention the ambition and the money only because I think that supports the conclusion that its reasonable to ask for a voluntary stepping back and reconsideration of the exact details. Please don’t confuse kibbitzing with either hostility or endorsement.

“Better for who? The Applicants apparently like their design, why do you feel compelled to impose your own narrow subjective judgement of what is an acceptable living space?”

I hardly think I’m imposing a damn thing. There is an egotistical component to my comments there, I confess. I’m trying to talk a little bit past the debate here and suggest fairly directly to the applicants that, well, if *I* had their money and was determined to go for their stated goals in Berkeley — I think the sweet spot looks a little different from where their planning took them. Yes, I’m opinionated. No, I’m not the pretentious jerk you make me out to be.

“From reading the notes it is apparent the current objections to the proposal are all derived from persons who have no direct contact or immediate impact from the house. Their main objection is rather transparent, namely, they resent certain folks with more means – its just classic class warfare.”

Um, no. You’re being silly.

There are, as noted in the comments you refer to, some pretty serious questions about the presentation of this project to the public and about the conduct of the process by which it won ZAB approval – those are real and pretty well argued for concerns.

Just thinking about it as a game: the applicants can shove ahead and they might win or they might lose. If they lose, it’s a pretty hard lose. If they win, it’s a win that looks like it’ll come with a lot of resentment and probable future retribution efforts. In the alternatives, they can *not* shove ahead, fall back a bit, and either better prove the project as planned or make alternative plans. In the “better prove” scenario it’s win-win all around. In the alternative plans scenario, it’s win-win all around. Both alternatives there cost more money and time but, as I said (and this was my point) it’s an expensive and ambitious project in the first place.

Please don’t accuse me of class warfare when my aim is depolarize and get creative juices flowing. I *do* engage in class warfare when I think it is called for and in this case, I think that would be premature. Sheesh.