BNC Archivist

Note:  In this Section, BNC publishes articles that are written either by a neighborhood representative without editing or is summarized from material that has been submitted to us.

In this issue, BNC had planned to publish an article written by a neighborhood representative regarding the Honda dealership moving to the site formerly occupied by retailer, Any Mountain.  The submitted article didn’t happen because plans are being changed around, but maybe, just maybe there will be some good news coming.  We just don’t know, but are ever-hopeful.

An Update Regarding the Honda Project

eNews readers may remember that when the City gave final approval for the construction at Parker Place (a mix of business uses, 155 residential units and 302 parking spaces at 2598 and 2600 Shattuck Avenue), the Berkeley Honda car dealership had to find another home.  At first, Honda planned to move into the vacant McKevin Cadillac building at 1500 San Pablo Avenue, but abandoned that move and were looking around for another space.  ^** Anxious not to lose the revenue, the City’s Economic Development Department proposed that the Honda dealership move into the Any Mountain space at 2777 Shattuck Avenue.  On March 17, 2015, the City Council approved deferring payment of $84,000 — $112,000 in permit fees that Honda would have had to pay to move into that building.  Instead, the fees would be paid to the Permit Center out of the City’s General Fund Reserves until Honda moved into the Any Mountain space.

The problem was that no one told the adjacent neighborhood about the plan in advance.  Residents were understandably unhappy to find out that an auto service center would be located, in what seemed to be a “done-deal,” in the space in the rear of the Any Mountain building.  This space is surrounded on two sides (east and north) by homes and apartments that are part of an old, well-established neighborhood with many beautifully restored and well-maintained Victorian single-family homes on quiet streets.

The driveway into the service center was to be located on Stuart Street reached by northbound drivers on Shattuck Avenue by making a right turn.  Because there is a median between the lanes on Shattuck at that location, southbound drivers have to turn left onto other streets and travel through the neighborhoods to reach the new service center entrance on Stuart.

Meetings were held with many neighborhood residents attending.  Information was shared on the history of the building.  As it turns out, the building once was a bowling alley, and it has a place in history where Allen Ginsburg gave an early reading of his poem, Howl – probably around 1955 (more on this at the end of this article).

Concerns were expressed over what would happen to the building and the impacts that an auto repair center and traffic would have on the adjoining neighborhood.  Now we are hearing that possibly Honda has decided to move the entrance to the service center onto Shattuck Avenue, right next to the restaurant, Kirala.

BNC doesn’t know this is being proposed for sure, and we don’t know if this is good news, since the new plans haven’t been posted online.  The application hasn’t been deemed complete yet and apparently there is also to be a revised traffic study.

Keep your eye on this Section for more news about the Honda dealership in the future.  And now, as promised, more on Allen Ginsburg and Howl.

The reading given in Berkeley is said to have been a definitive one.  The reading was around the time that the poem was seized by the San Francisco Police Department and U.S.  Customs because it was “obscene.” The subsequent court trial over banning it gained national attention.  Ginsburg won in trial when the judge found the poem to have social redemption value.  He would go on to gain recognition in the 70s, receiving the U.S.  National Book Award for Poetry, a gold medal from the National Arts Club and induction into the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters.  Just one more colorful story for the Berkeley history book!

^**For a bit more on 1500 San Pablo Avenue see the Section in this issue Neighborhood News, Round and About, The Continued Saga of 2211 Harold Way, A Surprise — More New Members on the Landmarks Preservation Commission.  BNC can only say — It’s indeed a Small World! There is no better reason for each neighborhood to be connected with what is happening in every other neighborhood.

We last left the story in eNEWS, issue #15 with Nathan George’s proposal to increase the number of bedrooms on 2 separate abutting parcels from the current 23 to 35 by constructing

• a new, 3-story duplex at the rear of 2204 Dwight Way,
• a new 2-story duplex and a single story dwelling located within an accessory structure at the rear of the landmarked houses known as “The Bartlett Houses” at 2201-05 Blake Street, and
• a subterranean parking structure for 6 cars.

The proposal had been appealed to the City Council.  After scores of neighbors appeared before the Council and spoke against the project and pointed out a number of problems with the meeting and how it was scheduled, the Council sent the matter back to the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) for re-hearing with the request that the ZAB specifically consider:

• The new plans submitted by the applicant.
• Parking requirements.
• Home ownership of the units.
• CC&Rs that would address the behavior of occupants.
• The usability of the open space and solar access.
• The driveway on the Dwight Way parcel.

ZAB held a public hearing on the proposal on April 23, 2015.  While the proposal involved two separate sets of permits, one for the Dwight Way parcel and one for the Blake Street parcel, they were treated as one, but voted upon separately.  The staff recommendation had changed from approval in the past to neutrality for this time-round regarding both parcels.

After, once again, hearing a parade of neighbors opposed, ZAB, on a motion by Commissioner Tregub, voted to deny the project.

Voting on the motion to deny the project was as follows:

Voting Yes (to deny the project):	Commissioners Christiani, Dominguez, Hahn, O’Keefe, Pinkston, Pinto, Tregub and Williams
Voting No (not to deny the project):	Commissioner Donaldson

ZABs action was appealable to the Council, and no appeal was filed.  This means that the applicant cannot proceed with the same proposal until at least a year has passed.

But the March of the Mini-Dorms Isn’t Over

On March 24, 2015, the Council was scheduled to consider adopting new operating standards for Mini-Dorms and extending those standards to Group Living Accommodations (GLAs).  Council’s discussion of the proposed amendments was postponed to their meeting of April 28, 2015 because students were on Spring Break.  On April 28, 2015, the Council took no action, and instead referred the matter to staff to review and come back on September 29, 2015.

The review is being conducted by Jim Hynes of the City Manager’s Office, and involves City Attorney Zack Cowan and other staff.  They have been meeting with a number of community groups, and have prepared an ordinance that includes the information below.  Please keep in mind that these are changes that are being considered.  They could be amended at any time before being presented to the Council and finally adopted later in the year.

In the amended ordinance, the definition of a Mini-Dorm would be changed as follows:

“Mini-Dorm” means any building in an R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A and or R-3 Zoning District that is occupied by six or more unrelated persons over the age of eighteen years, but is not a Group Living Accommodation as defined in Chapter 23F.04.  Permitted and Legal non-conforming Sororities, Fraternities and Student Co-Ops shall not be considered Mini-Dorms, as long as they have a resident manager.

For your information, the definition of a GLA in Chapter 23F.04 is:

A building or portion of a building designed for or accommodating Residential Use by persons not living together as a Household, but excluding Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Tourist Hotels.

GLAs are allowed in the R-3, R-4, R-5, R-S, and R-SMU Zoning Districts.

Proposed Exemptions in the new ordinance:

1. 1. GLAs that have adopted operating standards approved by the City as “functionally equivalent” to the requirements in the ordinance and that are implemented consistently.
   2. GLAs, or housing groups affiliated with or receiving funds from UC or the ASUC, that have adopted a set of policies that are “functionally equivalent” to the requirements of this ordinance provided that UC, the ASUC, or another organization approved by the City provides quarterly reports sufficient for the City to know there is continued compliance with the ordinance.

Exemptions will be lost if the Mini-Dorm, GLA or housing group receives 2 written notices that qualify as nuisances, in any 12 month period, or if the required monitoring program has not occurred, or if there hasn’t been reporting of non-compliance.

1. Owner-occupied buildings, hotels, or apartment houses of 16 or more units, or hotels of 12 or more guest rooms that are compliant with the requirement that a manager lives on the premises.

Requirements

Owners and Property Managers

The owner of any GLA and the owner of more than one parcel that includes a Mini-Dorm shall hire a property manager.  The property manager need not be a resident in the Mini-Dorm or GLA, but must be available at all hours to respond to complaints at all times.  The duties of owners and property managers, if any, are:

• Provide notice to all residents within 300 feet of the existence of a Mini-Dorm or GLA.  Include contact information where the Responsible Resident, owner and property manager, if any, can be reached at any time.

Responsible Resident

Residents of each Mini-Dorm or GLA shall designate a “Responsible Resident” who is responsible for:

• Refuse management and recycling
• Establishing a written maintenance schedule to keep the property free from solid waste, overgrown vegetation, graffiti and rodents.
• Responding to all complaints within 24 hours, keeping a log of complaints and responses, and retaining the log for no less than 24 months.
• Promptly notifying the owner and property manager, if any, of any notices regarding smoking and multiple responses to unruly parties and gatherings.
• Notifying at least one of the residents of each confronting or abutting property no less than 48 hours prior to any event involving more than 50 people.  Provide a contact number at which the Responsible Resident can be reached during the entire course of the event.

Public Nuisance

Any Mini-Dorm or GLA that creates a substantial disturbance such as excessive noise or traffic, obstruction of public streets, public intoxication, service of alcohol to minors, fights, disturbances of the peace, litter, refusal of access to Fire Department personnel responding to an emergency call or situation, or other similar conditions, constitutes a public nuisance.

Events involving non-compliance with the following requirements at events where alcohol is served may constitute a public nuisance:

• No person shall be allowed on a roof, not including those that are legally constructed decks and balconies that meet applicable safety requirements.
• Events should end by 10:00 pm Sunday — Thursday, and 1:00 am on Fridays and Saturdays and days preceding national holidays.
• Alcoholic beverages should not be served or available to persons under 21 years, or served or available in bedrooms occupied by residents under 21, or served or available in common areas where it is accessible to persons under the age of 21 unless service is controlled.
• The presence of a minor under the influence of alcohol shall create a “rebuttable presumption” that the event is not in compliance with this ordinance.
• Gatherings should be kept to a manageable size, generally under 200 persons total and are not to be allowed to take place in any part of the public right of way.
• If a Mini-Dorm or GLA resident or guest is convicted or enters a plea of “No Contest” to various violations of the Penal Code, or any other felony assault or felony sexual assault, and the crime was committed at an event subject to this ordinance, OR the Center for Student Conduct at UCB notifies the City that it has determined that a resident or guest has violated the Student Code of Conduct by committing a sexual assault during an event subject to this ordinance, the Mini-Dorm or GLA may be deemed a nuisance.  However, nuisance proceedings based on a report of a sexual assault by a survivor should not be conducted if the survivor does not initiate such proceedings with a written complaint to the City.
• This does not apply to regularly scheduled meetings and/or meals involving non-residents if such meetings involve only members of the group that owns or operates the Mini-Dorm or GLA and their parents/guardians even if the event includes the availability of alcohol as long as the service is limited to those over 21.

Remedies

• Prevailing parties shall be entitled to collect attorneys’ fees.
• The City may require removal of bedrooms from the Mini-Dorm or GLA
• Remedies should be reasonably designed to address the nuisance that the City determines has occurred.
• Nothing in this ordinance is intended to create a monetary remedy.
• Any resident of the City may bring a private action for injunctive relief to prevent or remedy a public nuisance.  No action may be brought until the City and the prospective defendants have been given 30 days written notice of the alleged nuisance and the City has failed to initiate proceedings within that period, or has failed to diligently prosecute.

At this time, BNC understands that the City Council will hold a workshop (i.e.  set aside a special part of their meeting usually about an hour before the regular meeting starts at 7:00 PM) on September 29, 2015 to discuss amendments to the operating standards for Mini-Dorms and GLAs.  We have been told that it is unlikely that the Council will take action on that date, but to be absolutely sure, check the posting of the agenda prior to that meeting.

Now is your time to consider the matter and get your comments into the City Council.  Remember Mini-Dorms are allowed in residential zones starting with R-1 through R-3.

More About Plan Bay Area:  The East Bay Corridors Initiative

BNC eNEWS readers will recall that Plan Bay Area, approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in 2013, is meant to guide the 9 counties and all cities in the SF Bay Region in planning for housing, jobs and greenhouse gas reductions for a projected population increase of approximately 2 million people through 2022.  The Plan calls for local communities to designate Priority Development Areas (PDAs) where growth is to occur.  These PDAs are eligible to apply for State funding to pay for the development of local plans.  That’s how Berkeley received a grant of $750,000 to plan for the Adeline/South Shattuck Corridor.

Criteria for PDAs is minimal.  They must be:

1. within an existing community,
2. near existing or planned fixed transit or serve by comparable bus service, and,
3. in an area planned for (or is planning for) more housing.

Back in 2011, Berkeley designated six PDAs in our city:

1. Downtown
2. Telegraph Avenue
3. San Pablo Avenue
4. Adeline Corridor
5. University Avenue
6. South Shattuck Corridor

Then in April 2015, the Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between participants:  ABAG, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, and the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Hayward, Hercules, Oakland, Pinole, Richmond, San Leandro, San Pablo, and Union City.  This MOU is titled “The East Bay Corridor Initiative” and its purpose is to define the:

shared goals and objectives of these local and regional agencies working collaboratively to enhance livability, mobility and economic prosperity within the Corridors, and establish the necessary administrative and governance structure to promote a cooperative relationship and for ensuring success of the Initiative.

Per the MOU, Plan Bay Area predicts Corridor PDAs will grow at a faster rate than the region as a whole and that compared to the region as a whole, residents of Corridor PDAs have:

• lower household incomes,
• suffer more from poor air quality and other adverse environmental impacts,
• are at higher risk during natural disasters, and are
• subject to displacement risk from rising housing costs.

In 2013, staff from the Participants divided the East Bay Corridor into two segments:

1. The Oakland-Union City Corridor:  Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, Union City and Alameda County.
2. The San Pablo Corridor:  Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, Hercules and Contra Costa County.

Participants, ABAG and “other agencies” will engage in working groups regarding strategies for implementing local PDAs and “regional planning objectives for each segment of the Corridor.” The MOU goes on to state:

This will set the stage for engagement with city leadership, development of partnerships with the non-profit and business communities, and obtaining funding to carry out the strategies.

Frankly, BNC doesn’t know exactly what all of this means, and since residents were locked out, inadvertently or otherwise, of the opportunity to make comments regarding Plan Bay Area when it was first adopted, and then specifically locked out of access to meetings regarding the East Bay Corridors Initiative, it will be hard to find out.  However, we will try and certainly let you know as we go along.

BNC selects a Berkeley cultural treasure to feature in each eNEWS issue.  Since we started, BNC has expanded this section so that we now consider community organizations, businesses, activities, architecture, events, and people that make the City of Berkeley such a special place.  However, whatever or whoever is nominated for this section must reside in, or have a strong connection with Berkeley, and be nominated by a Berkeley resident who has no connection, other than that of an ordinary patron of, or a participant in, whatever is being nominated.  Submissions may be sent to bnc50@berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com.  BNC will notify the selected treasure.

Two events that occurred during the month of August in years past were nominated for inclusion in this issue’s Cultural Corner.  BNC couldn’t let August go by without mentioning both and recognizing their importance in our daily lives.  We think you will agree.

---

On August 26, 1920, some 95 years ago, the 19^th Amendment, the Women’s Right to Vote, went into effect.

It all started back in Seneca Falls, New York at a Women’s Rights Convention held in 1848.  This was the first such convention of its kind in the U.S.  It was organized by Quaker women and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (who wasn’t a Quaker) as a convention to discuss the social, civil and religious condition, and rights of women.

Other conventions followed, and a movement began to grow to grant women the right to vote — something simply unheard of back then.  However, it would take some 30 years of hard struggle until a resolution granting that right was finally introduced into Congress in 1878.  It would take another 41 years after that before the resolution was passed by the House of Representatives on May 21, 1919 and two weeks later by the Senate.

All-in-all, between Seneca Falls and June 1919, the Nation had seen 71 years of parades, silent vigils, hunger strikes, civil disobedience, arrests, personal injuries, letter-writing, lobbying at all levels of government, holding up signs, and most likely hundreds of thousands of individual household arguments.  We all need to remember this when we think of the slow pace of government today, and we most certainly need to honor the courage and tenacity of those women who didn’t step back from doing the right thing, when it was against all of the social norms of their times and the dire consequences that men, but some women too, said would certainly descend upon the Nation if women were granted the right to vote!

By 1919, the women’s right to vote movement had made substantial gains, as 15 states had legalized women’s suffrage (nine of them in the West).  The honor of being the first state to do so goes to Wyoming in 1890.  They were also progressive enough to elect the country’s first female governor, Nellie Tayloe Ross back in 1924 when she was elected to serve out the term of her husband who had suddenly died in office.  Apparently the Democratic party in Wyoming was anxious to earn for their state the official nickname, The Equality State.  She served for two years, but then was defeated by a Republican at the next election.  Well, we digressed a little, but we didn’t want to leave you wondering what happened to this good lady after that, so just for your information, she went on to become the first female head of the U.S.  Mint, appointed in 1933 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Back to the subject at hand, even with those gains in 1919, getting the vote for women still wasn’t finished.  Hundreds of women were injured when they marched in protest on the eve of Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration.  Wilson favored women’s suffrage at the state level, but didn’t support a Constitutional Amendment because the Democratic Party was sharply divided, with the South opposing on the grounds of state’s rights.  In any case, the only Southern state to give women the right to vote was Arkansas.  President Wilson is believed to start having a change of heart when a 1917 referendum in New York State favored women’s suffrage and when he recognized the role that women played in World War I.  In January 1918, Wilson went in person to the House and made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the resolution.  It passed but the Senate fell two votes short, until 1919, when it finally passed handily.  Yet even then, the task still wasn’t finished because the final hurdle of obtaining agreement of three-fourths of the states needed to be accomplished before the Constitution could be amended.

That would take another year, and then the fate of the 19th Amendment would be decided by Tennessee.  By the summer of 1920, 35 of the 48 states had voted to grant women the right to vote.  The number of states needed for a Constitutional Amendment was 36.  Four states were thinking about calling a special session, and three declined to do so.  One state, Tennessee agreed, but the outcome was very tense because the Tennessee Legislature was badly split on the question.  On the morning of the big vote, Harry Burn who had said he opposed the right of women to vote, was in his first term and the youngest person to be elected to the Tennessee Legislature at that time, opened a letter from his mother.  At the end of the letter, she added the words:

be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt^* put the ‘rat’ in ratification.(^* a reference to suffragist icon, Carrie Chapman Catt)

The vote was 48 for granting women the right to vote and 48 against, and it came down to the vote of one man, Harry Burn.  He cast the deciding “yes” vote and the rest is history.  The next day he explained to his colleagues:

I know that a mother’s advice is always safest for her boy to follow, and my mother wanted me to vote for ratification.

The Resolution approved by the Congress was then ratified on August 26, 1920 as the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution.

To which, BNC says:  Thank you Mr. Burn!

---

The second of the two events to remember and celebrate in the month of August is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s I Have a Dream Speech.  Considering what has been happening nationwide, and including the displacement and loss of diversity occurring in Berkeley and throughout the Bay Area, BNC thought it would be good to once more hear a part of the speech that was delivered on August 28, 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

More than 250,000 people gathered together on that day.  There had been previous discussion among the various speakers as to which one of them would speak last.  Many apparently felt that the reporters covering this event would have disappeared toward the end of the speeches because they had to file their stories, so no one liked the prospect of being last.  It didn’t seem to bother Dr. King, because he volunteered to be the last speaker.

The story is told that he talked with his advisors about including in his speech his “Dream” but they didn’t want him to do that, so he didn’t include it in his script.  However, as his speech unfolded with the strong and beautiful cadence of Black preachers, Mahalia Jackson is said to have called out to him, “Tell them about the dream!” So, at the spur of the moment and as he was moving toward the end of his remarks he said:

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream.  It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification” — one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight;  “and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.”

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope.  With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.  With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day — this will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim’s pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Recognized as one of the Greatest American Speeches, it is fitting that it was given on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.  The entire speech can be found on the internet at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

It is time, to once more hear these eloquent words and dream the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr’s Dream.

As we have previously indicated, this Section will include not only reviews of neighborhood food businesses throughout Berkeley, but also news about food products or services that our reviewers find interesting.  On occasion, we might even offer a recipe or two.  Our reviewer will always be anonymous, and usually, a resident of Berkeley.  We accept reviews from our readers — send to bnc50@berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com and include your name and contact information which we will not publish.  We really would love to hear from you about that neighborhood gem that you loved, or even the one you didn’t!

The post for this eNEWS defines itself as a kitchen and bake shop and that’s the name of this restaurant that offers organic, seasonal, and locally sourced food for lunch and dinner and provides options for eating in, taking-out and catering.

Summer Kitchen & Bake Shop
2944 College Ave.
Berkeley, Ca 94705

510-981-0538

Hours:  Every Day, 11:00 AM — 8 PM
Closed most holidays

Summerkitchenbakeshop.com

Dinner at the Summer Kitchen Bake Shop is an inexpensive and delightful experience.  Located in the Elmwood Shopping District in South East Berkeley, it allows for a pleasant stroll along the College Avenue shops and neighborhood.  Parking can be difficult, but is worth the effort.

The restaurant is small, so getting there early is a good idea.  When our reviewer arrived at 5:30 pm there were still some tables available but very shortly thereafter the place was full.  There are only a few rustic tables and it is self-service.  Its relaxed atmosphere appeals to all ages, including families with young children.

The menu is not large, but extensive enough to provide a good choice.  They have:

Salads	Ranging from Star Route Farms Baby Greens at $7.00 to Kale Caesar Salad at $12.50
Soup	With locally available seasonal ingredients — $7.00/pint
Made-to-Order Sandwiches	Acme bread and homemade mayo Hearst Ranch Burger — $11.50 Apple Smoked Bacon — $11.50 Crispy Chicken — $11.50
Pre-made sandwiches	Diestel Turkey — $8.50 Sicilian Tuna Salad — $11.50 Organic Egg Salad — $ 7.50
Pizza	Margherita — $13.00 Hobb’s Pepperoni — $14.00 Brentwood Corn — $16.00 Organic Beech Mushroom — $17.00 House-made Fennel Sausage — $15.00 Black mission fig — $16.00
Nightly Dinner Specials	Half Chicken from Brick Oven — $19.00 Organic Becker Lane St. Louis Pork Chops — $19.00 Whole Wheat Spelt Pasta — $16.00 California King Salmon -$22.00 Organic Spaghetti with Hearst Ranch Meatballs — $18.00
Beers and Wines	Wine — $7.00 per glass, $21.00 per bottle and Beer — $5.00

The above is a summary of the menu.  For a more detailed description go to their website.

Our reviewer and party chose organic spaghetti and meatballs and a special pizza that was on the menu board.  The meatball dish was very good and the portion so large that the left over became next day’s lunch.  The special pizza was also very good and enough to bring home for a snack.  Baked goods were available for dessert and also got a thumbs-up from our reviewer and his date.

All in all, the food was excellent and reasonably priced!!