Page One
Letters to the Editor
Actually, five stories plus bonuses is enough
Editor:
Thank you for your interviews and your informative profiles of candidates for the District 5 Council race. I wish to clarify my position on downtown development, which I may not have stated clearly during my interview. For many years, as a member of the AC Transit Board, I have been a strong proponent of infill housing along major transit routes. Projects in downtown Berkeley should adhere to the height limits as expressed in the City of Berkeley Zoning Ordinance (five stories in the downtown core, plus bonuses).
They should also be appropriate to their site and surroundings. My comment that an overly large building would be inappropriate next to our historic library was given as an example of the importance of the role of context in establishing the size and massing of projects. I do not advocate out of scale projects which exceed the allowable downtown height limits . I do advocate encouraging more well designed, contextually appropriate downtown projects which will help solve our housing needs, encourage greater use of mass transit, and enliven the area.
Miriam Hawley
District 5 City Council Candidate
City needs real ‘transit first’ and affordable housing policies
Editor:
This letter is prompted by the Friday 9/15 Planet, which had an article about the determination of the UC Regents to put up a new building with a 200-car parking garage, and a letter by Patrick Kennedy about opposition to the Gaia Building.
We have congestion and lack of housing as the result of deliberate public policy.
It's the “business as usual” attitude that assumes that everyone will use cars for transportation, and that all of us want to live in a large house. When public policy makes these assumptions, then we get what we have got.
If we don't like congestion and lack of affordable housing, then we have to be ready to change our assumptions.
We could build apartment buildings with no parking facilities.
We could forbid on-street parking where it causes congestion, such as College Avenue and Euclid.
We could even forbid all the free enterprise parking that springs up on Cal Football days, and let game goers ride the abundant buses that AC Transit already provides.
That would do a lot to avoid post-game gridlock.
Most people don't have to own a personal car. Really.
They should be able to rent one when they need one.
A lot of people can live comfortably in an apartment, and not a real expensive one either.
Of course, people should be free to choose to live in big houses and go everywhere by car, but public policy should not assume this is how everyone needs to operate.
Berkeley is said to have a “transit first” policy, and in some districts, a requirement for 20 percent “affordable” housing. Are these virtual policies, established, but not to be implemented?
Steve Geller
Berkeley
Oxford tract building OK, but forget the parking
Editor:
As a neighbor of the proposed the Oxford tract “surge” building, I am against the 200 parking spaces proposed for the site, which would draw more cars into the neighborhood, but I think the classroom building would be a good addition to the neighborhood.
The Draft EIR projects that this building would increase the number of pedestrians at the Oxford/Hearst intersection by 500 to 650 people per hour, which would make the neighborhood much more lively and interesting.
The north side of Hearst between Shattuck and the campus is lined with 2 to 4 story buildings, and the proposed three-story surge building would fill a a gap in the urban fabric. The State Health Building on the south side of Hearst will be demolished in a few years and its property will be redeveloped. With pedestrian oriented design on both sides, Hearst between Shattuck and Oxford could be a lively urban street connecting downtown Berkeley and the UC Campus, a bit like Center St.
The Oxford Tract does not work as open space on Hearst. Its frontage on Hearst is a graffiti-covered one-story shed and a high wooden fence, with a bit of landscaping around them that is used for illegal dumping. The block looks like an abandoned suburban strip mall. I for one would rather live in a neighborhood that is an interesting place to walk.
Instead of opposing this building, we should be asking for mitigations that would make it work for the neighborhood, such as the following:
UC should protect pedestrian safety by removing the free-right turn lane at Oxford/Hearst and by adding a traffic light at Spruce/Hearst. These measures to slow traffic are imperative because of all the added pedestrians this building will bring.
UC should provide an area with seating in front of the building, facing Hearst. Maybe they could include a small cafe.
When drivers see this sort of pedestrian activity, they tend to slow down and drive more carefully.
UC should mitigate the traffic impacts of the building by providing bike lanes on Hearst above Shattuck. There are currently bike lanes on Hearst west of Shattuck, but they do not extend east of Shattuck to the University.
UC should not include parking on this site. University parking should be on campus or in downtown.
It should not be located where it draws cars into a residential neighborhood.
Most important, UC should guarantee that the remainder of the Oxford Tract will remain open space permanently.
Charles Siegel
Berkeley
The university does pay its fair share
Editor:
I would like to clarify a point made in the September 15 Daily Planet article on UC’s Seismic Replacement Building at the Oxford Tract. Councilmember Dona Spring is quoted as saying that the university does not pay taxes for infrastructure – for fire, police, and sewers.
Councilmember Spring is right. As a state agency, UC Berkeley does not pay taxes. Neither do the Berkeley Public Schools, the State Health Services Department, the US Postal Service, or any other public agency. (The City of Berkeley similarly does not pay taxes on property it owns.)
However, the university does pay the City indirectly, through a number of negotiated agreements and voluntary contributions. To name a few: Since 1990, UC Berkeley has paid the City $1,164,000 for fire and hazardous materials equipment and vehicles; $250,000 annually for sewer improvements, $50,000 annually for hazardous response training and $37,000 annually in hazardous materials fees, $1.3 million for waste water treatment, $250,000 for pedestrian lighting in the southside, approximately $500,000 for southside planning and transportation studies. The UC and city police departments have policed the Telegraph Avenue area jointly since 1969. In the Telegraph area alone, UC provides 4 patrol officers, with an additional 4 officers who monitor the greater south campus area in the evening and early morning hours. While on duty, any UC officer may respond to a city emergency.
If we were to add all of the direct payments and in-kind contributions provided by the campus to the city, they would easily total in the millions each year.
Just thought your readers would want to know.
Irene Hegarty
Director of Community Relations
UC Berkeley
Prop. Y bad for renters
Editor:
As if Berkeley rent control were not drastic enough (toughest in the nation), the City Council has placed Proposition Y on the November ballot.
They forgot one thing, however. They left in place the right of owners to select the tenant of their choice. If Prop Y passes, this glaring loophole will work to the detriment of handicapped or elderly persons seeking to rent in Berkeley. Is it reasonable to suppose that owners would rent to anyone in the favored category if they ever hope to be able to have a place for a son or daughter or parent some day? Indeed, owners would tend to favor younger tenants who are here for the short term since Prop Y allows permanent status to tenants who stay for five years in their apartments.
Clearly, allowing owners the right to choose was a big mistake. They will operate their properties in their own best interests which is NOT to turn over all rights to the tenants.
Proposition Y makes a bad situation worse and deserves your NO vote!
L. W. Harris
Berkeley
