I missed clarifying about the gate in the previous response. The new painted metal gate was not installed prior to the completion of campus green, and during 2003/04 the safety committee parents continued to push for the improvement since the backside of campus was still easy to access with the damaged chain link fence and gate.

I mentioned the gate since it was another environmental improvement reducing security problems. Jim did not consider securing the perimeters or keeping non-students off campus important. Yet non-students routinely entered campus.

Another fact,
In 2006 the police started a new practice of collecting names of non-students trespassing on campus. Only one of safety officers would participate. Cross checking of the names with crime incidents revealed at least 5 young people over a two month period arrested for armed and strong armed robberies along Milvia and in south Berkeley.
In other words, non-students trespassing are a definite threat to students, read my 2007 commentary Berkeley Daily Planet for more information.

Kate, I remember when you ran the etree and Jim Slemp selected you to replace the PTSA newsletter editor. I had previously consider you to be a democratically oriented parent volunteer.

The comment about the campus green was in response to the district claim that Jim Slemp lead the campus beautification projects. As you correctly state, he was not on yet here.

I stand by my statements.

Read the district noticing claiming Jim Slemp was responsible for the campus beautification.

And yes I know all about the grand opening, remember I transported the food for the grand opening.

I also organized with Cynthia the PTSA Welcoming reception for Jim Slemp.

Challenging facts? I doubt it.

“It was parents who ensured the campus green was built, thanks Cynthia Papermaster. It was parents who ensure the gate went up on Bancroft entrance, (known as the ghetto entrance and easy access for drug sales on campus)”

Both of those things (the campus berm and the gate) happened BEFORE Jim Slemp was hired — or indeed, even applied for a job. Yet you imply that he somehow tried to block these things. Yes, Cynthia Papermaster was a driving force in getting the green elements added to the campus. But that had nothing to do with Jim Slemp.

He arrived in time to be part of the grand opening but as he was only hired until mid-August of 2003 and all the landscaping was completed by the opening of school. It’s just not possible that he was involved with that.

Fact-checking is a good thing

As to your points:

The objections are not specious. the staff report is so flawed that using it as a basis for any type of decision is out of the question; why ZAB raised not a single question about it is a subject that should be explored. If Council holds the project over for a public hearing maybe we’ll get closer to the root of the matter. On the other hand, I would be surprised if a public hearing was granted as that would simply be a source for more public city embarrassment. ZAB already has egg on its face today due to the Lau escapade (see today’s Berkeley Daily Planet article).

The appeal is motivated by a need for information, and also by a need for access to a process that has worked well (if onerously) for the citizens of Berkeley for quite some time. The wider neighborhood has been shut out of the process altogether and has been denied very minimal requests. This stonewalling has led directly to the appeal. Once the appeal was undertaken the neighbors (and others) had the time to look very closely at the staff report and it has been found to be quite lacking. The appeal is not motivated by opinion, or on the merits of the design.

There are not ‘plenty of larger houses’ in the vicinity. If you really live nearby you know this to be true.

You suggest increasing the height of the house. Brilliant. It already exceeds the 35′ maximum height limit (although incorrectly claimed otherwise), and if you add in the massive plinth the house rests on, it rises 54′ or so above natural grade. Make it taller? How about limiting excavation by making the house smaller? This house has nearly 10,000 square feet of developed space, could have even more if the lower story is enclosed at a later date (it seems to be designed specifically for that purpose), and if you think about the developed roof terrace and the huge plinth, the usable area is simply vast. Oh, but this house is ‘green’ so that makes such conspicuous consumption OK, right? Wrong.

Eleven mature trees will be taken out during construction. The architects’s model shows much less tree cover than the renderings do. The trees to the west will be in the way of the bay view (the true reason for the height of the building), so how long do you think they will last? To say that the house is great and that no one should worry because it will be hidden by trees, beyond being a case of self-cancelling logic, is simply not supported by the information put forth thus far. You are right, the 1,500 cubic yards of excavation does for the most part take place under the footprint of the building; 800 cubic yards of it will be used to reprofile the hill and make the plinth (which is retaining 20′ of fill at some points). Maybe a less ambitious house would make less of an impact, you think?

And then you return to aesthetics. That isn’t what the appeal is about and you’re not furthering the discourse by framing that way. We architects always want to think that everything revolves around the aesthetic essence of our creations, but in this case no one in the neighborhood is complaining (yet) about what the building looks like. They are lay people and have a hard time translating a small two-dimensional drawing into a huge three dimensional reality; they are asking for story poles so that they can understand the implications of the height and bulk of the building. The proponents have not been forthcoming with information about the building’s cladding (and since Berkeley doesn’t have residential design review they may never have to), or what the massive earth-retaining walls will look like. The neighborhood simply wants to know what they are getting. I agree with you that the building is rather uninspired, but that is something for the Kapors to worry about; the quality of the architecture is not addressed in the appeal.

Once again: the appeal is not about aesthetics and it is not about the Kapor’s character. This appeal is about information, a subject dear to Mr. Kapor’s heart, and I’m sure that he can understand the outrage spawned by such incomplete and unsupportable ‘information’. The neighbors are simply trying to get the level playing field that also seems to be a leitmotif of Mr. Kapor’s philanthropic work. Another commenter suggested that the best course would be for Mr. Kapor to volunteer to do the story poles right away. The appeal would still go forward, of course, as it addresses many other issues, but agreeing to do the story poles would be a responsible and neighborly gesture at this point.

I think that the testy replies are provoked ultimately because: (a) as noted above, the application highlights the intended use of the property for philanthropic use to raise money for local concerns; (b) some of the letters in support to ZAB talk mainly about Mr. Kapor’s fine upstanding character and hint for approval on that basis; (c) someone was even seen to say (perhaps it was on this blog, pehaps in BDP) that the project should be approved because Mr. Kapor “has Berkeley values”.

So there’s at least the *appearance* of a somewhat organized push from the “pro” side to get the project through because Mr. Kapor is such a swell guy. And that ain’t right. Equal protection under the law and all that, you know?

Hell, I’ve very briefly met the man, myself years ago and met and interacted with a bunch of his employees at a software-oriented NPO he was running. (Heck, I don’t remember but perhaps I even met you then.) Judging from the work environment there I’ve no doubt that Mr. Kapor is a swell guy. But that shouldn’t figure into ZAB decisions beyond the most rudimentary assessments of his credibility and it shouldn’t be such a heavy element of the news coverage. It gets a bit weird if, somehow, his proper name is transformed into “Mr. Kapor-generous-philanthropist-and-all-around-good-guy”. Kind of biases the proceedings, if you know what I mean.

If Mr. Kapor were to take away a hint from these threads I would suggest that it shouldn’t be “people are looking for something to be angry about” so much as it should be he’s kind of gotten off on the wrong foot here. I say again that his best option might be to voluntarily join the protesters and request a re-evaluation, in part to sooth over the polarized divides before people on either side become too entrenched. I could be wrong. I do understand that sometimes you just have to butch things through or you never get anywhere – sure. From the coverage of this case, though, I don’t think this is one of those “plow ahead” cases: that would just open up a world of hurt.

• Size is not the issue: while the house is large by some standards [6500sf] it is not by others. There are plenty of examples of larger houses with the local environs. and beyond that far outstrip this house. – secondly this is mitigated in some respects by the size of the site.

• One solution to reduce the amount of site work would be to increase the projects height – which is restricted due to the slope of the lot and would probably be objected to by the neighborhood. – and although it is noted that the project is essentially a three story structure – this assumes that you are placing living space in a basement.

• Trees – the site is heavily wooded and I personally though they did an ok job of preserving most of what is there. and pulled most of the excavation inside the perimeter of the foortprint – minimizing site damage.

• Aesthetics – Many of the comments I have read in other venues have cited the “modern” aesthetic as a concern; this is sort of narrow critique troubles me – particularly in berkeley – Berkeley ’s “tradition” is in fact quite modern – Maybeck was considered quite the avant-garde modernist in his day [first concrete residence in america - located in Berkeley] and the city is home to many examples of exceptional design which transcend style and taste. While i personally think this project is a little tame [should be more modern] it is pretty tasteful and well executed.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2010-03-11/article/34820?headline=Berkeley-Council-Aide-Skips-Permits-for-His-Building-Project