Public Comment

Some suggested principles for a meaningful community benefits package for the proposed 2211 Harold Way development

Steven Finacom
Friday January 09, 2015 - 10:30:00 AM

This will be the biggest private sector building ever constructed in Berkeley—half a square block, 18 floors, 194 feet high—as well as the tallest Berkeley building ever (aside from the Campanile). The community benefits package should be proportionally outsized and permanently meaningful to the Berkeley public.  

Detriments of the project—including the loss of key businesses and community services, or their extended removal from the Downtown during construction—should also be figured into the benefits equation. Economic costs of detriments—such as the loss of sales to downtown businesses and taxes to the City during the period the Landmark Shattuck cinemas are not operating—should be calculated and detriment costs subtracted from the claimed positive benefits.  

Calculation of what constitutes substantial community benefits should be based on the value of the completed project to the owner(s), not on what is spent to construct the project. 302 condominium units would be worth at least $225,000,000 if placed on the market (assuming a very modest average selling price of $750,000 per unit. Remember that many of these units will be unique “view” condominiums rising 6 to 18 stories in the sky, and will probably sell for millions of dollars each).  

It is probable the whole building, combining the housing, rentable parking in three underground levels, and extensive commercial storefronts on four block faces, will be worth about $.3 billion ($300,000,000) or more when completed. That will most likely mean at least $150 million in profit for the owner, made possible by City zoning and approvals. A substantial percentage of that profit should go to the public as permanent community benefits.  

Claimed “community benefits” that actually primarily benefit the residents of the building and/or the owner should be excluded from the calculation. For example, the inclusion of “free” bicycle parking or transit passes or electric vehicle charging stations for residents are amenities that may result in higher rents, and will primarily benefit the people living in the building. These are not “community” benefits in any significant sense of the term. 

Claimed community benefits that largely benefit those outside of Berkeley (such as construction workers living elsewhere in Alameda County) should be excluded from the formal calculation. These are not benefits for the Berkeley community, where impacts are felt. 

A substantial portion of the benefits should be “permanent”—that is, they should be benefitting the community as long as the building stands, not ephemeral or short term. Examples might be funding a major streetscape improvement in the Downtown, or finishing the needed seismic upgrade of the Shattuck Hotel (wouldn’t it be a tragic irony if, after the next big earthquake, the landmark Shattuck Hotel is destroyed while the new building stands?).  

The benefits package should include a binding agreement that the building owner(s) will fully compensate the City for any loss of property taxes or other public revenue that would occur if any portions of the building are leased or sold to taxexempt entities such as the University of California. This provision should include any lost property taxes from renting storefront space to BART for the existing bicycle storage facility in a former storefront on Shattuck. 

The benefits package should identify a specific City office responsible for monitoring the benefits, with power to act directly if they are not provided. The monitoring process should be paid for annually by the building owner. Possibly this task could be attached to the office of the City Auditor as a formal annual responsibility. There should be a well‐publicized way for members of the community to address questions or complaints about the benefits package implementation. Monitoring reports should be made public. 

The building owners or their successors should be financially responsible for any loss of guaranteed community benefits that occurs in the long term. There must be a binding legal agreement on this.