I’m not a District 6 resident nor a Rose Street neighbor, but I do find the lack of correct process concerning (the story poles, etc.) The result is a troubling concern about the transparency of city government.

Having not been at the meeting, I might be missing the context, but I find the “all the Phds” comment really odd. What is that supposed to infer? They’re smarter about where they live? I’m perplexed.

I live in the vicinity of what was a long standing tree dispute between neighbors; it’s not a fun neighborly experience. I hope that the Rose Street neighbors find ways to make some peace.

Thanks to Berkeleyside for providing a way for residents to follow this.

The story pole argument was always a ruse. These guys had no intention of changing their mind no matter what the applicant might have done. It was spite, plain and simple, with some tinge of class jealousy tossed in. There is little a story pole will tell you that the drawings and models didn’t already convey.

The opponents main grievance borders on the petty – reduced to its essence it basically boils down to “I don’t like your house because I may have to drive by and see it for 5 seconds a day, and that offends my sensibilities”

Its good that the City stuck to the law and struck down this challenge based on some inconsequential aesthetic slight.

Eric P,

Yup. Well, except that there is a legit concern here of greater interest – this building will have huge land-use impact that long survives all of the neighbors and the Kapors.

Time to bring in the tree sitters; perhaps they can make a platform at the height of the missing story poles. I’m sure someone at the Panoramic Hill Association has some phone numbers…

Hi Cliff.

By “conservative” I don’t mean pro-life or anti-gay necessarily, I simply meant to allude to the one-track mind that will reflexively oppose any change whatsoever out of blinding irrational fear and exaggerate the dire consequences to Armageddon-like levels by, for instance, saying that a single house will forever change the face of Berkeley and that it is destroying our local government along the way.. and so on. That’s all.

It’s a house. Get over it (or don’t). He’s not buying up the neighborhood. He’s not painting your house or using trailers or instituting death panels. He’s building his own house on his own land with some of the most established local architects you can get, and every step of the way so far has proven you wrong and him right and not by a small margin. But don’t worry about your track record, there’s no doubt you’ll be proven right about state law and probably federal law too.

I know that you’re in too deep to admit this reality to anyone or to yourself so I look forward to the entertainment of watching you continue on your quest to stop the evil modern house, it’s been quite a knee-slapper!

I do however appreciate you confirming that the real issue is your perceived property value. I know it’s no big deal and it was pretty obvious from the start, but in this case as with most, people tend to not admit their true intentions when trying to make their silly cause sound just and principled, so well done on that point.

Cliff: unless the “appellants” want to spend more good money on lawyers, the issue will die here. We’ll see exactly where their priorities lie very soon.

In terms of Kriss Worthington’s understanding of the code, well, all I can say is that when Mr. Worthington starts to practice law then maybe I’ll give more deference to his opinion. Until then I’ll stick with my interpretation based on 20+years of practice.

The ONLY hope these guys have, as I mentioned on another thread, is to point out that the property IS within the CGS “hazard” zone, and go from there. But, even then, the code allows the local agencies a lot of discretion in terms of how to apply it, so IMO they are SOL. Its a waste of their money, and it will be a waste of ours as well if the City has to spend our taxes on the lawsuit.

Hey James,

I didn’t think you meant “pro-life or anti-gay” … but I didn’t think you meant “one-track mind that will reflexively oppose any change whatsoever out of blinding irrational fear and exaggerate the dire consequences to Armageddon-like levels …that it is destroying our local government along the way …” so thanks for clarifying that. You are aware that there are numerous other projects in our neighborhood that require AUPs, aren’t you?

How about a color blind definition of “conservative” (no red state blue state nonsense) as “one who conserves?” I prefer “conservationist.” More of an environmentalist meaning, along the lines of stewardship of the earth during our brief moment of strutting and fretting during our brief hour on this planet.

I disagree, it’s not just a house. It looks like a commercial building, it will be used as a commercial building, and it quacks like a duck. The more we talk about it, the harder it will be for the Kapors to enclose the third floor and use it for offices, so by all means, let’s continue discussing it.

You missed my analogy completely. Let me walk you through it one more time: You and I are not neighbors (I don’t think), but we could be. Just as the Kapors waltzed into our neighborhood, he’s my neighbor simply because he bought the property that my neighbor lived in for 50 years. That’s all it took for him to buy the rights you are defending, and it’s the same way that you and I could be neighbors. With me so far?

If I have enough pocket change, I can buy ALL the properties around you, and create a gigantic lot which would allow me to build a huge mega-structure. My question is are you OK with me doing whatever I want with those ugly old dilapidated houses on those properties around you? They’re not? Well, I say they are, and they have no historical value, and I say they need to go. I want to tear them down and build new ones. You don’t like the aesthetics of my proposal and you say I’m abusing the process and violating the zoning code? But all my immediate neighbors support me! Who are you to object? (I chose shipping containers and double wide trailers because I thought that might be a universally disliked style, but hey, fill in the blank of the style you would least appreciate living next to–maybe it’s those awful landmarked houses that staff somehow missed in their original report).

OK, follow me just a little further. Remember, just like the Kapors, it’s MY land, MY houses, so I can do with as I please, according to you. I asked you to then consider that you weren’t my immediate neighbor (right next to all the surrounding property I bought around you), but that you were one of the neighbors of the immediate abutting and confronting neighbors that I had been meeting with behind your back, and buying their support.

Now, here comes the zinger: Two weeks before I go before the ZAB to get the city’s permission for my project, you get notified of my plans. Keep in mind that the report by staff is factually incorrect and full of errors, but you have to do a lot of research in a short period of time to realize that the project is being misrepresented, staff is wrong because the applicants wrote the report and did the research, and staff just signed off on it. What are going to do about it?

If your answer is doff your cap and pull your forelock, bow and scrape in deference to me, my wonderful wife, our many foundations and our wonderful plan–”beggin yer pardon Mr. Kapor, sir, but the wife and me is privileged to be your new neighbors”–then I respect the consistency of your logic and your integrity. But if you answer that you might question whether I had an absolute right to do what I was doing, then we’re making progress.

“Every step of the way so far has proven you wrong and him right and not by a small margin?” Oh, I can’t let you get away that.

Did you watch the council meeting Tuesday night? Story poles are required in the H-1 district and weren’t installed. Two confronting neighbors were not consulted. The plans mis-represent the project and cannot be built as designed, and most importantly, is not exempt from CEQA. The historical record of the home was just a lie (see “If You Don’t Want to Find It, Don’t Look Anywhere at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2010-03-25/article/34927?headline=If-you-don-t-want-to-find-anything-don-t-look-anywhere.

You know, the entire appeal and my comments, as well as the comments of other opponents and supports are extensively documented on Berkeleyside at the link in the article above.

Have you noticed that almost every single article on Berkeleyside, including this one, shows the very expensive 3-D model prepared by the Marcie Wong and Don Logan, but that it never gets brought out to the public? It wasn’t at the ZAB, it wasn’t at the City Council. It’s supposed to represent the building, but perhaps it is too fragile to be brought out into the full light of day–in more ways than one.

I would say my track record is pretty damned good, I stand behind everything I have said, and am willing to take on all comers who wish to challenge anything I have put forward. Don Logan sends his errand girls, Marcie Wong tried and gave up, and Mr. Kapor learned a valuable lesson about foot in mouth disease when he commented in the NYT. He knows he can count on his spokespeople, and they’ve done a land office business in red herrings.

I am human and can make mistakes. I hope I am as able as the imposter who tried to impersonate me to admit those errors, and I will do so if and when you or someone else can point them out. Alas, such has not been the case so far. To the contrary, it appears that I am slowly being proved correct, as the non-unanimous vote in the council may (or may not) have demonstrated.

It’s not that I’m “in too deep”, I am honestly open to the possibility that I am in error, that I have misrepresented the facts, or that I somehow got something wrong. It’s going to take more than the kind of general statements that you’ve made, though, so you better bring your A game and give me some specifics to address.

I guess if this is entertainment, the real fun will come if the “evil modern house” get’s built.

One point I will concede to you and the world is that you are right, I am concerned about the value of my property, but not in the pecuniary way I think you accuse me of. If you talk to the realtor who just sold the house up the street from 2707 and supports this project, she will tell you that the Kapor house will increase everyone’s property value, and that’s why she’s for it. I disagree, and she knows better. That’s not going to be a comp to anything in the neighborhood. What I was saying is that it’s going to be harder to sell your property if construction actually begins, so if you believe this house is going to be built, now is a good time to sell.

You’re wrong that it’s not a big deal, the value of my property is directly tied to the value of my neighborhood, which is directly tied to the values of my city, which is directly tied to the values of my country, which is directly tied to the value of my planet. You see how calling all of them mine makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up? That’s because they’re all part of the same world we have to live in, and we all share these resources. We are but stewards of that which we think we own.

Again, I urge you to go back and consider my analogy above, and ask yourself whether the value of your property would be adversely impacted by the project I have proposed around you, and then honestly tell me that I do not have legitimate concerns.

Related case to keep an eye on:

Preservationists seek to block demolition of Apple CEO’s mansion
By Jessica Bernstein-Wax
Palo Alto Daily News
Posted: 04/29/2010 10:15:42 PM PDT
Updated: 04/29/2010 10:15:43 PM PDT

Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ years-long struggle to knock down his crumbling Woodside mansion hit a new roadblock Thursday when a preservation group appealed a March court decision to let the town issue him a demolition permit.

In March, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner upheld the Woodside Town Council’s 2009 decision allowing Jobs to demolish his enormous 14-bedroom Spanish Colonial Revival mansion known as the Jackling House, which he has long sought to replace with a smaller home.

Jobs got permits from the town to raze the 17,250-square-foot building in 2004, but preservationists formed a group called Uphold Our Heritage and fought the decision in court, contending the initial environmental report did not demonstrate that preserving the house would cost more than replacing it. On Thursday, Uphold Our Heritage appealed Weiner’s ruling just days before a May deadline, said Doug Carstens, the group’s attorney.

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision, and we have all along,” Carstens said by phone.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_14988958?source=rss

Thankfully, pulling false CEQA alarms is punishable by large judgements for attorneys fees.

lifelongberkeleyen: Wow, I have really lost respect for your postings (but not your right to make a fool … to post). I had to read your short posting a couple of times to make sure you had actually said something so fatuous.

Not only are you absolutely, 100%, categorically and unequivocally WRONG, the truth is just the opposite! CEQA was DESIGNED to PROTECT public interest lawsuits! Attorney’s fees can be recovered even if the appellants LOSE!

No, no, wait, it gets better!

The appellate case that established this doctrine? Bowman v. City of Berkeley!

The attorney defending Berkeley? Zach Cowan, the current city attorney!

The attorney defending the plaintiffs in Bowman v City of Berkeley? Susan Brandt-Hawley! Yes, the same Susan Brandt-Hawley who presented the case for the appellants at the kangaroo council meeting! Look it up for yourself, here is the citation: 131 Cal. App. 4th 173 (2005)

I don’t know whether you just make this up and post it thinking no one would know any better, or no one would challenge you, or no one would look it up, but you’ve got a computer right in front of you, it’s connected to the internet, so I don’t see any excuses for misrepresenting such a material fact.

I’m really disappointed in you.

Now let’s see what JNG has to say. At least he/she is representing themselves as an attorney, so maybe there’s something to chew on in that posting.

Mr. Magnes

see:

http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/cases/2005/Bowman_v._City_of_Berkeley_(edit).htm

part of paragraph 2 sec. 1.Background is excerpted here:

“the Neighbors had been billed $96,592, and had paid $89,696.50, for legal services in the case. The Neighbors also submitted a memorandum of costs in the amount of $5,761.37. The City opposed the motion for fees and moved to tax costs. The court determined that the Neighbors were entitled to fees and costs incurred in connection with the due process issue litigated at the outset of the case, and awarded them $17,314.35 in fees and $979.00 in costs.”

$96,592.50 – ($17,314.35 + $979.00) = $78,299.15

I hope the $18,293.35 relief CEQA afforded these “Neighbors” made the other $78,299.15 easier to pay.

JNG and lifelongberkelyan,

Excellent research, excellent posts on the same issue. My esteem for both of you is somewhat restored. Maybe you guys are bringing your A game.

Just keep in mind that this was the APPELLATE decision that allowed the parties who would ordinarily be called the losers to recoup some of their expenses (because the project was approved anyway once the city was forced by the lawsuit to provide a remedy for their grievance). The tragedy is that it took a lawsuit to get the city (of Berkeley!) to fulfill their duty to due process.

Also, the plaintiffs in that case were arguing one of the weakest of the appellants arguments, since the city process is DESIGNED to create these kinds of problems. The Kapors chose to exclude anyone except their immediate neighbors from the discussion, so when it became public, neighbors had a strong reaction. Keep in mind that most people got TWO WEEKS NOTICE that there would be a hearing on this project.

There are other statutes and case law on CEQA as well which apply to this situation, but I doubt the opponents would go ahead unless they were pretty sure they would win. They have some pretty strong arguments. The City is sure going to a lot of trouble to make it easy, since their decisions have been based on factually incorrect information, which was acknowledged, but not corrected, at the council meeting.

In my mind, the city council is forcing a lawsuit in the same way that the Kapors forced an appeal. They could have taken some small additional amount of time to send it back to staff and the ZAB to correct all the errors, instead of giving the appellants all that ammunition, but keep in mind that this project is no ordinary project.

In more ways than one.

Hi Cliff – don’t worry about it, I don’t take any offense at your comments, you’ve been very civil to date in my opinion – we all bring our perspectives and biases to our public voices here and none of us are immune. I was only pointing out that have my own experiences and my attitude is not “make everyone pay like I did” but rather “geez don’ t put anyone else through that” – if you’ve gone through it before the stakes are somewhat higher and I think you appreciate more the stress and cost associated with what some people think are well intentioned actions. It looks like you are a good and responsible neighbor which is always a good thing.

I am a new neighbor to Beth El (right down the street) so I guess my observations are apt for one reason: I’m not contaminated by the past. The temple was already there and I don’t have a reference to gauge the neighborhood before. But I can say, to my perception anyway, they are a very good neighbor and I don’t think they are at all a blight, burden or hassle. As this person rightfully points out, the typical naysayers rely on hyperbole, hysteria and every manner of theoretical nonsense to contest these projects. There is nothing that is too far fetched in their imagination to present as an argument – the most recent for the Kapors, of course was “well, they may have too many fundraising parties” – how silly can you get.

s.z. underwood (& JNG):

I don’t know the answer to your specific question about Beth El, but I think I can easily refute your assertion that this has any bearing on “the various claims (like [mine]) now being proffered which prophesy catastrophic consequences to the whole character and quality of life if the Kapor house is built as currently approved.”

First, let’s keep in mind that no building permit has been issued for the Kapor “house,” so there are still a lot of questions about resolving the land use approval with the “house” that is being proposed. The model (which has yet to make an appearance at any of the public meetings) and the plans (which contradict themselves, as well as the zoning approval) will have to be “resolved” at the building permit stage. With all this fuss, that is probably going to be closely scrutinized, so I think there are still a lot of unresolved questions about what the final structure would look like, if it ever got built.

Second, as you yourself point out, the Beth El project was very different from this project, a false analogy by your own admission – but I don’t reject your point out of hand simply on that basis. I am presuming that every project raises different issues. I am just guessing that sometimes the fears of those who object prove to be well founded, and sometimes they don’t. I doubt that the scent of fabric softeners will be a big issue in this project, but it was a big issue for the people opposing the Laundromat that came before the ZAB the same day this one did. I am also guessing that just going through the city process, flawed as it is, helps to resolve at least some issues prior to construction.

Third, I think there is (at least one) fundamental logical flaw in your assertion that we can deductively extrapolate from other controversial projects to learn anything meaningful about the merits, or lack thereof, of those supporting or opposing this particular project. Dicto Simpliciter.

When there is a proposal that will make a substantial change in the status quo, especially when the status quo is presumed to be quite desirable, there are often objections. Those objections (as well as the arguments in support) will fall somewhere on a range from, say, highly plausible to absurd. Some Cassandras will be correct, others completely wrong. The same will be true of Pollyanas. Just because a lot of people complain about big projects doesn’t mean all those complaints can be dismissed because not everything turned out as bad (or as well) as people feared (or hoped). Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Having rejected the premise of your question, I think what is left of your point is a good one, so long as you are comparing apples to apples. I can’t answer the legitimate part of the question you pose, which is how many of those dire predictions came true, only the neighbors who fought that battle can. After the project was approved, they had to choose to either live with it or move (allowing space for new residents who are not “contaminated with the past”).

Having referenced JNG’s comment, and to avoid two separate postings, let me quickly cover the absurd and fallacious oversimplification being advanced. Here is the full context: The use of the “house” is a legitimate zoning issue. If the Kapors want to provide space for their foundation in that structure, that would be a non-permitted use, a zoning violation.

Yet “[Mitchell] Kapor said in an e-mail that a substantial part of the home would be used to raise funds for community and campus groups, including scholarship programs for low-income and under-represented students enrolled at UC Berkeley” in the February 23 article in the Daily Californian.

Would that be a substantial part of the 6,478 square foot “house” or the 9,872 square foot building? Either way, Mr. Kapor chose rather odd phrasing for the use of his home for dinner parties to raise funds, but perhaps that’s why his highly paid publicity team are advising him not to speak publicly anymore. It does, however, allow the proponents to ridicule the question of the ultimate use of this structure as “well, they may have too many fundraising parties.” Now that is sillygism.

One important issue that the opponents have raised is how much of the building will be used for business purposes. Part of that issue is the third floor, which city staff maintains, with a straight face, mind you, that it doesn’t count as a floor because it’s not enclosed. Yet.

No, these are not new penalties. Abusing the “citizen lawsuit” feature of CEQA, through perjury, manufacturing evidence, fraudulent claims in sworn proceedings leads to serious consequences. If you’re wondering how often such things occur, Google: “citizen suits” for personal gain.

Regarding all of the legal arm-chairing above, a realpolitik consideration seems to have been missed:

Many of us seem to agree that had the City reversed the approval, there is a good chance that the City would wind up in court defending against the Kapor’s.

Conversely, with the action Council took, there is at best a lesser chance it will wind up in court vs. the appellants, not least because they might have better recourses.

The facts of matter so far support a cynical hypothesis that the appeal failed politically because its rejection presented the lesser risk to elected officials.

lifelongberkeleyan,

OK, I see where you’re going. If the OPPONENTS are perjuring themselves, manufacturing evidence, committing fraud (illegal actions which apply to everyone), then that would be abuse, and if it was proved in court, there would be a heavy penalty, whether it was about CEQA or any other state statute.

Gotcha.

So, using the same logic, I could say that if the PROPONENTS are perjuring themselves, manufacturing evidence, committing fraud (illegal actions which apply to everyone), then that would be abuse, and if it was proved in court, there would be a heavy penalty, whether it was about CEQA or any other state statute.

By not mentioning that the same standard applies to BOTH sides, but singling out one side and suggesting that there are heavy penalties for illegal actions which it is not clear EITHER side has yet taken, you are able to justify your comment: “But it is still true that the proven abuse of CEQA (or any other state statute) incurs a heavy penalty.”

Man. That argument is lame on so many levels. I keep telling you, bring your A game to this discussion and we’ll get more light and less heat.

Moving on to something nice I can say about your posting on 5/1 at 9:10 PM, I think this is at least the third time we have inadvertently and unintentionally agreed on some comment you’ve made, though for completely different reasons.

The Kapor project does supply the perfect combination of facts and funding for litigation exposing abuse. While I’m not so much hoping that it goes to court, I think the city and the Kapors have foreclosed all other options, and have handed the appellants the right to an EIR on a silver platter. Just as it was a foregone conclusion that the council would rubber stamp it, a court challenge may be another foregone conclusion.

If you think about it, whether you’re for or against this project, an EIR would really be a public service, since it would definitively answer and settle all the questions that people are arguing over. It would certainly address s z underwood’s concerns, and it would give everyone the satisfaction of unbiased report about all the “hysteria,” no matter which side you were on. It’s already clear that the city, the ZAB and the council screwed this up, so why not do an EIR and get the facts? It’s not like it will cost tax payers anything, and it’s not going to be a financial burden on the Kapors. What’s the argument against doing an EIR? We don’t want to know the facts?

“Amateur historians and merit badge naturalists?” Nattering nabobs of negativism it’s not, but you’re probably no Spiro Agnew (or William Safire) and I mean that as a compliment. It’s kind of catchy — I like it. It’s got the dismissive disdain of “eco-freaks, enviro-maniacs, little old ladies in tennis shoes, even almond cookie revolutionaries,” but the heroic reference to the kinds of historians and naturalists who saved the bay and redwoods, and removed that horrible smog layer that some of us still remember. “Amateur historians and merit badge conservationists” may have preserved some of the things we treasure most about this incredible neighborhood, city and bay area.

Furthermore, and in defense of amateur historians everywhere, if the Kapors had hired even an amateur historian (like the one who discovered the true history of the house:-), then they wouldn’t have misrepresented the facts to the city, which would not have misrepresented those facts to the ZAB, which would not have misrepresented those facts to the council, which is one of the reasons the appellants have a right to an EIR.

As for me, I will wear the amateur historian and naturalist “merit badges” with pride (not that I care much for the association with the boy scouts). I wonder if there is a CEQA “merit badge?” I’ll have to look into that.

Thanks for the sincere compliment, but artful dodging? Wasn’t my primary point that you couldn’t compare Beth El to Casa Kapor? If I didn’t make that clear, then I don’t deserve any compliments for a “rhetorical masterpiece.”

Did I call the neighbors of Beth El “victims?” I don’t think so. I use quotation marks to indicate that I am quoting someone, usually the person I am responding to, sometimes myself, not as a rhetorical flourish, but maybe that’s just a Strunk and White issue.

In any case, for all of your questions asking for further clarification requiring comparison between the two projects, let me refer you to my first paragraph. You continue to point out the dissimilarities, then ask me to reconcile the commonalities, and it just can’t be done. At least I can’t do it.

As for “inadvertently underscoring a critical fallacy in [my] own reasoning” let me address an issue I thought I had already gently addressed in an earlier posting in this thread. I did not “’imply’” in side stepping the question about Beth El, only the immediate neighbors are really in a position to know or comment accurately upon its impact,” you inferred that. I stated “only the neighbors who fought that battle can [determine how] “many of those dire predictions came true”. Part of this controversy is what defines people who have a legitimate right to have an opinion on this project. The proponents define their neighborhood so narrowly that it is the “immediate neighbors” i.e. the ones they share property lines with, or would if there were no street between them, but not the neighbors of those neighbors. The opponents have a broader idea of what makes a neighborhood.

If there is, as you posit, a very large “fall out zone” around Beth El, I think I am in the outermost ring of that zone, so whether the dire predictions of the opponents or the promises of the proponents came to pass, I am not impacted directly enough to know. Once again, this is not the Beth El project, it is a completely different project. If there is a “fall out zone” around the proposed Kapor project, I think I am in the innermost ring.

You are correct that four of the six “confronting and abutting neighbors” approve of the project, two of them are so supportive that they presented the Kapors case at council. These were the neighbors who were taken into the Kapors confidence and cone of silence early on in the process, and who breathed not a word of it to their neighbors until two weeks before the ZAB hearing. As I … implied in an earlier posting, who knows what the Kapors promised in return for their support? Several council members did comment on how unusual it was to see such enthusiastic support for a project like this.

As to your question of the greater good (greater social utility and importance?), I would say that compliance with zoning trumps any eelymosynary efforts by anyone, not just the Kapors. Should we check the Forbes 500 list in order to make land use decisions? What are we, selling indulgences here? If so, someone needs to nail up some theses to the doors of city hall.

Is that the city you want to live in? A city where zoning laws and due process are waived for those who give generously to their own foundations? (Or, perhaps more to the point, contribute generously to political campaigns—because that’s the system we already have). We’re all equal under the law, but some of us are more equal than others? I mean, I know as a practical matter that is the way of things, but I hardly think we need to further encourage this kind of thinking.

On the other hand, are you saying that in opposing this project I am forcing “low income or under-represented students who against very difficult odds succeed in qualifying for a first rate university education be … to work two or three side jobs or longer and longer hours to support themselves, so that [I and my] ilk might not suffer some occasional extra traffic near his house, parking aggravation, noise of clinking wine glasses, mirthful laughter carried to his porch on a foggy night or whatever other horrors charitable dinners or lunches might subject you to?” (The quotation marks tell you that this is a rhetorical question.)

Man, what a bastard I must be to oppose this project! Unfortunately, the straw man who would object to such nobility of purpose for such trivial impacts doesn’t exist, (though I cannot speak for my ilk, who, for all we know, also torture kittens at the mere mention of mirthful laughter).

I’m not objecting to “fund raising dinners” either. Straw food for straw guests. I brought this issue up in the context of how much of this structure would be used for business purposes, potentially violating the R1-H zoning requirements. The size, the design, the parking–all have raised questions about whether the Kapors will be running their foundation out of this “house.” Mr. Kapor’s public statement, as quoted in the February 23 article in the Daily Californian didn’t reassure anyone. He said “that a substantial part of the home would be used to raise funds for community and campus groups, including scholarship programs for low-income and under-represented students enrolled at UC Berkeley.”

That’s an odd way to put this idea that he would be having fund raising dinners at his houe, but who knows? Maybe they send out engraved invitations inviting people to dinner “in a substantial part of [their] home.” I guess the strategy here is to ridicule this idea by reducing it to it’s most absurd exposition, rather than looking at how hard the proponents are working to even deny there is a third floor to install offices in.

Lastly, consider this: For what the Kapors already have into this project (excluding any costs from TODAY forward), they could have already bought a beautiful, huge, ready made house in the Berkeley hills on a gigantic lot, with three bridge views and lovely gardens and, if not a ten car garage, room to expand to the 10,000 (green) square feet they just have to have.

Even if they couldn’t find the perfect house to expand, I’m sure there have been better properties for this development on the market in the last few years (and better value). Their furniture would already be moved by now, their huge art collection already hanging on the walls, and they could be pondering what noble purpose to devote all the money they saved by not pitting neighbor against neighbor on Rose St. How much is that? What do you suppose, 8 figures? How many more deserving people could that have helped?

Come on. Is this really where you want to take this conversation?

Berkeleyside,

Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this forum. I’ll post again when developments warrant.

Cliff:

Pardon the tardy reply to your exhaustive rebuttal (I have one of my own!), but I may not attach the same burning urgency to Casa Kapor as you appear to. Although you write well and seem to have a fine rhetorical knack, I think your last response relies more on obfuscation than marshalling any evidence to buttress the validity of your concerns. Of course, I understood very well that you reject out of hand any parallels or analogies to the Beth El project, probably because the outcome of that project reveals an “inconvenient truth” about your argument. I am not obligated to accept the parameters of this discussion which you dictate.

I would respectfully suggest to you that you reconsider the fundamental concept of “precedence” both in our jurisprudence and in our body politic. When a legal decision cites precedence as dictating an outcome, the exact facts and issues between the new case and the legal precedent are never identical. In fact, they often differ markedly in various particulars and specifics (sometimes strikingly so), but there is a general parallel between the two cases which is of paramount significance in reaching a just and reasonable conclusion.

When I evoked Beth El, I was looking for some type of local precedent which might help us better judge how plausible the predicted negative outcomes may be to the Kapor project. I argued then and still maintain that to my knowledge (please correct me if I err), there is no better parallel case to cite. Both of these projects are in the same neighborhood (within about ½ mile of each other) and the Beth El project is in the recent past. Both involved very contentious and disputed ZAB hearings and a City Council appeal. There were several private law suits filed (as there may be with the Kapor house) and there was intense public controversy and scrutiny about the merits of both projects. Even the modernist architectural styles of the two projects became a tangential, but visceral issue. I showed you earlier that many of the specific complaints and fears of the Beth El neighbors were similar to those now being voice in certain quarters about the direful negative impact on the quality and character of the neighborhood if the Rose St. project goes forward as currently envisioned.

Let me give you another obvious analogy about precedence from our body politic as well. When the previous presidential administration proposed to install “democracy” by force in the Middle East, many in Berkeley immediately invoked the legacy of Vietnam in anticipating what a disastrous failure this occupation would prove. Now, according to strict Cliff Magnes logic, any analogy would prove specious. Vietnam was 40 years earlier; it’s in a totally different region of the world and occurred in a totally different geo-political climate (“The War on Communism”). Yet, it is now obvious to most that while there were significant differences between the two wars and occupations, the nature of the insurgency and so forth, the actual parallels to the Vietnam morass are actually remarkably telling.

Now, let’s say for the sake of argument that a developer intended to erect on upper Rose St. a towering section 8 oriented housing project and Cliff Magnes cried foul about such a project being a potential disaster for the neighborhood. If I or others demanded that you furnish some credible evidence that low-income public housing projects slapped down in the midst of an affluent area often have a deleterious impact on the surrounding neighborhood, you could easily furnish reams of compelling evidence.

The real reason you reject any analogy to Beth El is not that there is no meaningful parallel, but rather because there is (as far as I know) no evidence at all that Beth El created the manifold problems it was accused of precipitating. These charges were baseless, false and (frankly) libelous as well. Most likely, so are all of the complaints you peddle ceaselessly about Casa Kapor!

Berkeley Bowl West is further afield, but it also was opposed by the usual suspects (most of whom did not reside in the area) as a doomsday project for the whole neighborhood. BBW required a major zoning variance and clearly went against the obvious intent of the West Berkeley Plan. We were told that BBW would harm neighboring small businesses and craftsman, that it would create gridlock and a parking nightmare in the area. Have any of these predictions come true to your knowledge? Can someone else who reads this blog and who lives in the vicinity of BBW please comment on how life has changed since the store opened (for better or worse)?

You claim to be a long time Berkeley resident. Doubtless, over the years you have followed many controversial building projects, some of which came to fruition in the end despite bitter opposition. All I am asking is for a single, credible example that the anticipated problems from a new construction actually materialized. Is this a fundamentally unfair or unreasonable request? I contend that you essentially ridicule this whole line of argument as “off topic” because you can’t actually produce any credible evidence from past building controversies to buttress your current claims.

No doubt, if you choose, you will have the last word here on this point. I am checking out of this discussion for the time being. When all is said and done, maybe we can compare notes again down the road and see which perspective had more truth and merit? Until then, I wish you all the best.

to sz underwood,

Thank you for calling Cliff’s Bluff. The Kapor’s might consider that as a name for the project. You ask him to produce one single tiny piece of fallen sky and he folds.

Attacking the test after failing it is common here. Ask the faction of our local educators who claim standardized testing is irrelevant.

The truth and Berkeleyans like you shall set us free.

(Sigh). OK, I’ll bite, but only because I have an abiding faith in logic and reason, even when it has been proven that this faith is unfounded.

I stand by my statement that this thread is dead (but maybe it’s just so frayed that it will break at any moment). There’s no one here but us, we’ve driven everyone else away, their eyeballs having long ago rolled far back in their heads.

Just to be clear, what you’re asking for is some kind of incontrovertible proof that those who raised concerns about Beth El and Berkeley Bowl West had legitimate concerns (i.e. a concern they raised about these projects that they raised prior to the projects being built came to pass after the project was built), in order to judge whether the opponents of Casa Kapor have raised legitimate concerns?

Your rationale is that these are not false analogies, as I have suggested, but that the opposition to Beth El, Berkeley Bowl West and Casa Kapor are actually as similar to each other as one of the wars in the “middle east” (Iraq? Afghanistan? Palestine? Israel?) is/was to the war in Viet-Nam?

Furthermore, if I can’t supply that incontrovertible proof regarding Beth El and Berkeley Bowl, it is reasonable to dismiss all the issues I have raised?

Is that a fair restatement of your question?

I’m not folding, I’m calling, but once again I’m enjoying deconstructing your postings, lifelongberkeleyan. I’ll wait for s z underwood’s reply before I post my next nugget on “Magnes Cliff.” It’s actually a fascinating area!

(No doubt about it, I need to think twice about checking the box that says send me further replies on comments!)

Surprising even myself, I have read all of these posts. And I find myself curious about the four of you–Cliff Magnes, Thomas Lord, Lifelongberkeleyan and s z underwood–who are posting a lot about it and I’m wondering what your dog is in this fight. (It seems Mr. Magnes might live near the lot-in-question.) Sometimes many intellectual arguments are made from an self-assumed “rational” position and yet there are real-life, personal connections to the issue– family, economic interest, got fired from a job at Lotus, etc. I don’t think that these connections necessarily undermine or gird an argument but I think the transparency is ultimately illuminating.

(I’m thinking of the thread about the Elmwood where Mr. Knoble appropriately clarified that an impassioned poster had, in fact, a formal role in the Elmwood. It was important information for this reader.)

I’m particularly curious since there seems to be animus between two of you on another thread. It might lead newly-informed reader to consider discounting opinion/ideas assuming that the whole exercise is a continuation of a pissing match started elsewhere.

Curious Berkeleyans want to know: What’s your dog?

Rachel:

To answer the most direct part of your question: I have pretty much no personal stake beyond that which I think is shared by all residents of Berkeley. I live in SW Berkeley. I’m fond of some aspects of the view of the hills. From biking trips in the past, I’m fond of the building that has been neglected and will likely be torn down — years past I actually fantasized about buying that particular property. In business, I’ve (very briefly – like “just a handshake” territory) met Mr. Kapor once and spent a long afternoon in a software shop he was running. My professional take-away from the meeting was they (that shop) were off on a loony path, technically, but were well meaning. I noted with bemusement the “too much money, too little direction” absurdity of that office and I noted with admiration and appreciation the noble effort and the evidently quite fair, erring towards overly generous treatment of the workers. For the record, I think a home along the lines proposed is kind of swank and well worth doing – though I also think it is entirely inappropriate for the site. For the record, my impression is that Mr. Kapor is a very nice guy although doesn’t always make the best choices about how to deal with his wealth. To the extent that I have a “dog in the fight” – I’m *pretty sure* that my motivation is simply (a) a general wish to see the quality of Berkeley politics improve; (b) a generalized concern about development plans in Berkeley (where I have lived off and on for 20 years, feeling the impacts of decisions in these matters).

You might notice that in these Kapor-project threads and in the BRT threads I’m accused of a few things. Being a bore AND scoring some excellent points. Being some kind of hippie obstructionist AND being a relentless defender of car culture. That interests me. The City runs on such rhetoric, to a large extent, and yet it is all complete crap. Since I have already and apparently will continue to invest much of my life living around this place – the dysfunctional political climate seems worth poking at.

I have enough respect for Mr. Kapor that I openly suggested here, back when these threads started, that he ought to *himself* ask ZAB (and later Council) to back off on the permits and extend the period of community consultation. He would have become an overnight hero and he would have been on the path of successful projects (like Berkeley Bowl West and Beth El). Spit in the rain, I guess. It’s his money. It’s his reputation. It’s he who as to sleep at night with his decisions here.

Don’t mistake me, though, for someone attempting to adjust their halo of invincibility and righteousness. I do have a strong prejudice that in disputes like this, the wealthier and more swaggering party tends to be in the wrong. I’m not simple-minded in class warfare issues but neither am I neutral. If you’re looking for biases that will cloud my judgment, that might be the place to start.